U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

51–249 2009

HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING 

FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS (CONT’D) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

Ranking Minority Member 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

VICTOR ARNOLD-BIK, Minority Staff Director 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 

111TH CONGRESS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez, 

Davis of California, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper. 

Staff Present: Charles Howell, Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Deputy Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief 

Legislative Clerk; Gregory Abbott, Policy Analyst; Brian McCue, 

Professional Staff; Matthew DeFreitas, Staff Assistant; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; George Hadijiski, Minority Professional Staff; Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. The quorum being present, I call the Committee 

on House Administration to order. And the Committee on House 

Administration—as you know, has a tradition where the chairpersons and ranking members of our committees come before the 

committee to discuss their funding and oversight priorities for each 

Congress. Out of respect and appreciation for the Chairs and ranking members participating, I am asking each Chair and ranking 

member to limit their statements to 5 minutes and for our committee members to be mindful of the schedule when asking their 

questions. Whatever information we do not have time to collect 

today, I am certain our staff can work with the various committees 

to get it from them in a timely fashion. 

I would like to recognize our friend and ranking member, Mr. 

Lungren, for any opening statement. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank you for the cordial relationship you have established in 

this committee with your staff and your staff with our staff. And 

while there are many areas that majority and minority members 

sometimes disagree on, we have for the last several years enjoyed 

a relatively bipartisan approach in this committee. At least twothirds or three-quarters of what we do, it seems to me, is essentially bipartisan, and I hope that we can continue that tradition. 

Many of our chairmen and ranking members have established 

standing precedents about the operating practices within their respective committees and their function for many years according to 

those principle. Even though it may have new chairpersons and 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
2 

ranking members before us, I am sure they want to follow in that 

same spirit. I want to ensure that the understanding that has prevailed over the last number of Congresses, both Democrat and Republican, continues, which is an equitable division of funding which 

has by precedent been established as the two-thirds/one-third rule 

with committees, and that is something that we have followed all 

the way through. I was pleased with the chairman’s response that 

we will continue to do that as our effort here today, and I hope that 

we can move forward expeditiously. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. Anybody else have any opening 

statements they would like to make? Hearing none, I thank you 

again and welcome our own Vice Chair, and newly appointed Chair 

of the Ethics Committee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, and her ranking member, Mr. Bonner, from Alabama for 

opening statements. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am pleased to be before you today as the new chairperson of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. 

Bonner and I have served as Chair and ranking member of this 

committee for, what, a couple of weeks now, Jo. So we are just beginning. And we believe that the committee, commonly known as 

the Ethics Committee, is an integral part of our institution. 

As the full name implies, our job is to uphold the standards of 

the House, and we believe that the budget we have put before you 

will allow us to accomplish the upholding of the standards of the 

House. 

Historically the committee has really had two roles. First is an 

advisory and educational role for our Members and staff and, second, an investigatory role or enforcement role when violations appear. 

Now, we have historically produced a huge amount of work on 

traditionally modest resources. We have a new obligation since 

2000 to provide mandatory annual ethics training for every officer 

and employee of the House of Representatives, including staff in 

district offices. That is over 10,000 employees and you can imagine 

that that is a substantial body of work that falls to the committee. 

In addition, in March of 2008, the House voted to establish the 

Office of Congressional Ethics. That office has the authority to 

make referrals of alleged unethical conduct by House Members and 

staff to the committee for further inquiry and disposition. Obviously that is also going to expand the workload of the committee 

and its members. 

The budget before you reflects the expansion of responsibility 

that has been added to the committee. We have requested a budget 

increase from the 110th Congress from 4.9 million to 5.7. This is 

an increase of 7.4 percent in 2009 and 8.6 percent in 2010. With 

regard to the staffing, we were granted additional positions in the 

110th, but they are vacant. So we, Mr. Bonner and I, are on a mission to staff up—I mean, I have heard from many Members that 

they can’t get their letters answered and there is a reason, because 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
3 

we need—the staff is working very hard, but they are very short 

staffed, and so we need to change that. 

The other thing that we hope to do is to increase the technology 

within the office. Much of the things that are—the approval, for example, of travel, preapproval of travel, which is a new responsibility of the committee is paper based. So there is—whole forests 

have fallen before this obligation. We hope to streamline that and 

have as much transparency as we do now, maybe more, but also 

to make it less burdensome not only for the committee but for 

every Member of the House that wants to comply with the requirement, but to do so in a very efficient way. So that is something that 

Mr. Bonner and I will be working on with the staff. 

The other obligations that the committee has is to respond to 

telephone inquiries seeking guidance from Members on rules and 

standards, to draft responses to written requests for advisory opinions, to provide, as I mentioned before, ethics training, to draft advisory memoranda of general application called pink sheets that 

are distributed to all the Members and staff, and of course to review and approve over 2,000 financial disclosure statements by 

Members and officers and covered staff, which is an enormous undertaking as I am sure you can imagine. 

I would ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be 

added to the record. But we do look forward to establishing our 

new working relationship with the outside ethics office that is really starting from scratch, and it is important that we set that up 

in a way that works well and is transparent and upholds the highest standards of the House of Representatives because really what 

we do on the committee and with the Members of the House is so 

important so that the public can have confidence that the people’s 

House is living up to the highest rules possible. And that if we disagree, it is on the basis of principle, that we would never doubt 

that we are doing the best we can to deliver the best possible legislative product for America as we see fit, with no insinuation of 

other elements in the consideration. So we believe the budget we 

submitted is necessary. 

In answer to the one-third/two-third question, we don’t do that. 

This is the only committee in the House that is evenly split. The 

staff is appointed jointly by the Chair and ranking member with 

the exception of one counsel that each of us can appoint for assistance. So we have done that and we are in the process of doing that 

now. 

And I will turn to my cohort here, Mr. Bonner, who can further 

elaborate, but I think from my perspective, that has worked very 

well and I expect it will continue to work well. And I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
4 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 51249A.001
5 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 51249A.002
6 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 51249A.003
7 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 51249A.004
8 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 51249A.005
9 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 51249A.006
10 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And without objection, we are going 

to put your request in by unanimous consent. 

Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JO BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and other 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for 

the opportunity to be here to speak about the Ethics Committee’s 

budget request for the 111th Congress. I am privileged to serve as 

the Ranking Member of the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct with Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, and our distinguished colleagues from all across the country. 

The purpose and work of this committee, as you know, is very 

important. It includes helping to educate and advise Members and 

their staff of the House about their ethical responsibilities and to 

enforce violations of the rules of the House fairly and consistently. 

We share a commitment to carrying out these responsibilities to 

preserve the integrity of the House and to increase American citizens’ confidence that their elected representatives, regardless of 

their partisan affiliation or position, are abiding by the highest ethical standards. 

Ethics has become a popular topic recently. In that regard, our 

committee must be given the tools necessary to accomplish many 

critical tasks. This budget will support the committee in providing 

professional advice to all Members and their staff about a myriad 

of complex ethical issues involving gifts, privately sponsored travel, 

and public disclosure of finances. It will aid in our ability to increase and improve upon training for thousands of House staff located in Washington, D.C. As well as in district offices throughout 

the country, and it will help ensure that unethical conduct is 

promptly and impartially addressed. 

I note that the House Administration Committee’s actual funding 

in the previous Congress for the Ethics Committee was significantly below the budget request sought by the Chair and Ranking 

Member at the time, and I hope that is not the case in this Congress. 

I look forward to working with you and my chairwoman to 

achieve a budget that will help achieve our goals as we respect and 

protect the institution that the American people look to and know 

as the United States Congress. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
11 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 51249A.007
12 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And thank you for your service and 

your time in appearing before us here. Any questions from Mr. 

Lungren, the ranking member? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yeah, just a couple. And we are going to be limited by the total amount that the Appropriations Committee is ultimately going to give us. And if we add everything up that people 

have requested here, we are probably not going to fall within that 

range. So we are probably going to have to trim here and there. 

In the past there have been substantial increases for the Standards Committee, even though it may have been below what was requested, and the argument at that time was there were additional 

duties, additional rules that had been established. They had to figure out what those rules meant as they were applied, and so forth. 

And just this question and that would be since that is past you, 

some would say why do you need additional funds, and I would just 

like you for the record to just give us an idea of why? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the 

new outside office is brand new. They just met for the first time 

a few weeks ago. That is a whole new additional burden that we 

need to work with them. We need to staff up to deal with that, 

adopt procedures to do that, and we don’t know of course whether 

the volume of referrals will be high or low. But we need to be prepared. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So the staff costs of their staff are included in this 

request? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, no. But our staff—they will review and then 

they refer. So we need to have—it is a matching system on our 

side. 

Additionally, the burden of preapproving travel is—I mean, this 

is an enormous job. There is a lot of travel undertaken by Members, and I think having the preapproval is really a good idea. It 

has allowed the public and the Members to know that there is 

nothing wrong with the private sponsors. The staff reviews the private sponsors to make sure that there are no lobbyist influences so 

that—I think Member travel is important. You learn things when 

you go around and see with your own eyes. But the amount of staff 

time involved in that is huge. And I will add also Mr. Bonner and 

I are spending an enormous amount of time going through the approvals. So we have got to get that right. And it is not just in the 

committee’s interest but every single Member of the House needs 

to make sure we have properly done that function and in a timely 

way as well. Would you have anything to add, Jo? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Lungren, I would say I certainly agree that we 

are asking the American people to make sacrifices, and so we have 

to be careful of the example we set here in Congress. So you say 

that is a contradiction to ask for an increase in funding. 

Let me give you an example of what happened to me in December. I was trying to access the House Ethics Committee web page 

to do a continuing education training class that I wanted to complete before I assumed the position as Ranking Member of the committee. And even though the Web page was updated in previous 

years, I was not able to access that because I was not on a House 

computer. I was doing it from home. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
13 

Technology is our friend, and there are ways that technology can 

actually save money, and I think that the request that we have 

made is for capital investment in people to bring our staff levels 

up to where we can respond to Members and their staff in a more 

timely fashion and also where we can in the era of transparency 

make sure that the American people see what it is that we are 

doing to try to uphold the integrity of the House of Representatives. 

So it is a great question. It is certainly one we are sensitive to. 

But I think the chairwoman is right, what we are trying to do is 

to make sure we are ready to adjust not only to the new responsibilities that come with this outside group that was enacted in the 

110th Congress, but to other challenges of Members and their 

staffs. We don’t want a single Member to have to come before us 

because they committed a violation that we could perhaps with 

education and advice have helped them avoid. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank you. Just for the record, I want to say 

that my office and I have benefited from the professionalism of the 

staff that you have. We have added a large number of new rules 

with obligations both on the Members and on your committee. And 

if we are going to make it work for the American people, we have 

to be able to have that properly staffed, and I appreciate your request and I appreciate your educated defense of that request. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a 

question quickly to the Chair and to the ranking member. Any reason to believe that the request from Members regarding either an 

opinion or an approval will diminish or reduce in number in the 

coming months? My suspicion is that it is going to increase. I don’t 

think we do anything now—and it is good. The scrutiny is intense, 

as it should be, but we seek guidance. We don’t do anything in my 

office now without checking with Ethics. We still say check with 

Ethics. It is Standards. 

But still, any reason to believe your workload is actually going 

to decrease? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is an excellent question, and my guess 

is it is going to continue to increase. We talk to our colleagues and 

one of the things that all the members of the committee have 

pledged to do is not to give ethical advice on the floor to our colleagues and make a mistake. We need to have the staff review it 

and make sure it is in an orderly way. But we do note that people 

want to make sure that they are following the rules. The rules 

have grown increasingly complex and people are seeking guidance. 

They don’t want to make an error. 

So I think it is a very good question. I expect continuing increases in request for guidance. And that is a good thing. Because 

when we get that guidance, then people can comply with it and 

mistakes will not be made. So I think we are moving in the right 

direction. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Gonzalez, I would just say one of the other rule 

changes that occurred in the previous Congress which has added 

additional responsibility to this committee is the change that we 

made whereby if a Member is involved in a matter subject to the 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
14 

jurisdiction of that local community or State rises above the level 

of a parking ticket, then we automatically have a responsibility to 

review that and to report back within 30 days. We had several 

Members on both sides of the aisle last year that in previous Congresses the matter would have been treated as an incidental incident and would not have come before the committee, taking up 

staff time and Member time but did. Those are just the new rules 

that we live by in an effort to try to uphold the highest standards. 

So unfortunately, as much as we could hope that the work would 

diminish, I think the Chair and I are in complete agreement that 

we hope we never see a colleague or a member of the staff come 

before us because they have done something wrong. But I think it 

is our responsibility to do all we can to help lay a clear paper trail 

and a clear process to make sure that Members are making good 

decisions and realize the consequences that come along with a bad 

decision, even though it may have nothing to do with their official 

responsibility as a Member of Congress. It may be off campus and 

after hours, it nevertheless can come to our attention and will, with 

the time clock starting as soon as it does. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate the presentation and I understand 

what Standards said. We make these new rules and sometimes 

people have been here longer, so they have to be educated. So I 

think it is a continual thing you will have to do, especially with 

this new ethics office. 

I know your request is for two-years and we meet one time. I was 

just thinking—I guess this would be up to the chairman and to 

yourself—knowing where we are limited and we should be limited, 

making sure every dollar is spent wisely, and not knowing that you 

are walking in with this new outside world of ethics, would it be 

appropriate that the committees come back after the first year because everybody—we won’t be able to fulfill everybody’s needs, and 

knowing that you are going into a changing world? I am one that 

believes in technology, but the one thing that comes with technology as well is a whole new standard because you want to communicate with your constituents as much as possible and technology changes every day. But we have got to make sure we are 

meeting the criteria of Congress and not mixing anything different. 

Would it be appropriate if a decision is made with coming back 

after a year to evaluate, knowing the limited dollar figures for the 

next year as well? How would you feel about that? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, obviously I would defer to the chairman and 

ranking member of the House Administration Committee on 

whether they wish to have that kind of process. If they do, I would 

be happy to comply. 

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly wouldn’t mind if we have the money 

to be able to give to you. I don’t know where that is. We would 

have to talk to our appropriators. But I would certainly not mind 

entertaining any requests after a year that you have to come back 

and get some more funding. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The only thing I was thinking, Mr. Chairman, 

is that we can’t fulfill everybody’s needs, and rightfully so. But it 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
15 

gives a little greater accountability. Plus with the changing world 

therein, there may be something different that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand and appreciate that. I have no 

problem doing that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could just on the point—we referred to it, but 

didn’t directly address it, I have a very strong interest in—and I 

think the ranking member shares this interest—in updating our 

technology. That will help not only the House Administration Committee, but it will help every office on the Hill. It would be more 

efficient, for every single office will save money if we are successful 

in bringing technology in and streamlining some of these processes. 

So that is the major goal that we have. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. McCarthy, I would just add that while the 

Chairwoman had a previous tour of duty on this committee and I 

served in the previous Congress on this committee, this is, in fact, 

the first time that she and I have had an opportunity to work together and in the few weeks that we have had this opportunity, 

usually citing literally forests of paper that have been processed to 

make sure that Members were able to go on trips or not take trips 

or know what the rules were or were not, I am convinced that she 

and I will have an opportunity if we are still given this honor to 

serve on this committee either next year or the beginning of the 

next Congress with an opportunity to show you how that money 

has been invested wisely for the benefit of the Members and the 

institution, as well as for the staff. 

As a former staffer, yourself, many times the 10,000-plus young 

men and women who work on the Hill come before the committee 

seeking advice as well. And a lot of times that is not necessarily 

going to make a headline in the newspaper unless they make a 

mistake. And so we truly want to embrace technology as much as 

we can, mindful of the budget constraints, so that this committee 

becomes a committee where people can come to and get a response 

back in a timely fashion. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again for appearing in front of us and 

we certainly hope we never have to appear in front of you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Lungren and Members. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen. We look 

forward to your presentation and your statement, and the floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren, and truly to your staff for the assistance in helping us get 

ready for this. And I want to thank my ranking member very 

much, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for joining me here today. 

I would like to start off by addressing a seemingly high budget 

request from my committee of 23.27 percent increase. Almost half 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
16 

of this increase relates to a circumstance which I believe is unique 

to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We support financially two commissions and one interparliamentary group authorized by Congress, with leadership and members largely drawn from outside my 

committee’s membership. It is the question of these Members 

chairing these two commissions and an interparliamentary group 

which accounts for the apparent large increase in my request. 

Knowing that these commissions and interparliamentary groups 

are a priority for Members of Congress and are vital to the leadership on both sides of the aisle, they need to be funded adequately 

to achieve their mission. The budget request from the committee 

specifically represents a 13.78 percent increase for the committee 

over 2 years, includes a cost of living allowance of 4.78 percent this 

year, a cost of equipment replacement and salaries for two additional staff, majority and minority, which the Speaker authorized 

pursuant to House resolution establishing the Tom Lantos Human 

Rights Commission last year. Therefore, through the 111th Congress, there would be only an average increase each year of 6.89 

percent to cover COLAs, equipment, salaries and other expenses. 

Our request also contains a budget request submitted by Mr. 

McGovern and Mr. Wolf to fund the newly established Tom Lantos 

Human Rights Commission, and by Mr. Price and Mr. Dreier for 

the House Democrat Democracy Assistance Commission. It also 

contains funds for a temporary additional position to manage interparliamentary exchanges. This request for this position is made at 

the behest of Mr. Tanner, to support his activities as President of 

the North Atlantic Assembly. It is quite an accomplishment that 

the NATO parliamentarians chose Mr. Tanner. He is going to be 

President of the North Atlantic Assembly for a 2-year term. When 

Doug B. Rider held that position, he received an additional temporary staff to assist him in his obligations. That is what we are 

asking for here. 

So that is one of the three, and that is a temporary position for 

the term of John Tanner’s chairmanship of the North Atlantic Assembly. The other two are the House Democracy Assistance Commission where we requested 506,000 plus dollars in total expenses 

for the work over the next 2-year Congress. Their request includes 

funding and slots for two staffers and the equipment needed to 

support the Commission’s activities. 

Mr. McGovern and Mr. Wolf have requested 933,000-plus dollars, 

almost 934,000, in total expenses to fund the Tom Lantos Human 

Rights Commission, which was created September 24, 2008. No additional funds were provided for it at that time, even though we 

passed a resolution creating the Commission in September and the 

speaker authorized two slots. 

So this is the funding for those two positions. This is the first full 

Congress in which it has existed and thus their request includes 

salary and expenses for four permanent staffers, equally divided, 

and two shared staffers for a total of six positions. 

The budget for these two commissions and the North Atlantic Assembly position represents 9.49 percent of the Foreign Affairs Committee request. Their requests are made through the committee because the committee provides the financial conduit through which 

their expenses are accounted. Under our practice, the ranking 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
17 

member receives one-third of the salary budget, excluding shared 

administrative staff. Within our allocation, the ranking member determines how these moneys are to be distributed. The percentage 

allocated to the minority was the same in the 109th and the 110th 

and will remain the same in the 111th. 

So to summarize and close, based on the committee’s current and 

additional responsibilities, my request for a 13.78 percent increase 

for the committee and a 9.49 percent increase for the various commissions is in my opinion a reasonable request. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
18 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 51249A.008
19 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 51249A.009
20 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 51249A.010
21 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 51249A.011
22 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 51249A.012
23 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 51249A.013
24 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren, and fellow committee members. I am proud to appear alongside my friend and my good colleague, the distinguished chairman, 

Mr. Berman. Our Committee on Foreign Affairs has a long and rich 

history of working in a bipartisan manner to advance our Nation’s 

security interests and foreign policy priorities around the globe. 

The consultative and collaborative approach extended into the 

budget process, with the chairman reaching out to me to ensure 

that the minority’s requests were incorporated into the final presentation. 

The matters addressed by our committee are among the most far 

reaching and important for our Nation. If we are to provide for our 

Nation’s security, we must be able to effectively address the threats 

posed by radical Islamic militant extremists, their state sponsors, 

their financiers and other supporters. We must be able to access 

and to strengthen our nonproliferation efforts and develop an integrated approach to curbing the spread of chemical, biological and 

nuclear weapons, including by addressing both export control 

mechanisms as well as illicit networks that provide rogue regimes 

and nonstate actors with the technology, the materials, the assistance to pursue policies that threaten our U.S. and global security. 

Our focus should not simply be on addressing immediate threat, 

but in pursuing sustainable programs that will build civil society, 

provide for political freedom and economic growth and prosperity, 

thereby countering the precursor conditions that breed hatred and 

extremism and in turn lead to violence and terrorism. 

Our committee is also embarking on a long and difficult process 

to overhaul our basic foreign policy assistance statute, along with 

our foreign aid programs, our structures, our operations to ensure 

maximum effectiveness, accountability, and transparency. As our 

oversight plan denotes, we have a robust agenda planned for this 

111th Congress, and as such, the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

needs to have the adequate resources to exert proper oversight and 

assess, develop and implement legislative strategies that will help 

achieve those desired objectives. 

I will continue to work with our chairman, Chairman Berman, 

to achieve a fair and equitable majority/minority distribution and 

look forward to working with all of our colleagues in developing 

and implementing an effective foreign policy that promotes U.S. national security interests in the short and long term. 

I thank all of you for your time, and I thank the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I have 

admired Mr. Berman for many years. We worked together on the 

Judiciary Committee, and I have always known him to be an outstanding attorney and he proved it again today by taking his increase from 25.9 percent down to 6 percent effectively. Very, very 

well-done. 

Let me ask this. We will not have all the funding that has been 

requested of us. We have a pretty good idea from the Appropriations Committee, we are not going to be able to fulfill all of these 

obligations, so we are probably going to have to go through some 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
25 

haircuts here. If that were the result with your committee, are you 

prepared to find those savings? 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, there is no doubt we will adjust to whatever—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask it this way. Would it be more likely 

that you would find those savings in these new entities that you 

have to gear up for or in your already existing functions? 

Mr. BERMAN. We cannot afford—if we get much significantly less 

than this, I don’t think we can afford to do in these other commissions what I would like to see done. I mean, the human rights work 

that—I think what they do is bring real value to the Congress and 

basically to American interests. But if you look at the agenda of 

this administration on foreign policy, the incredibly complex nature 

of the issues that come before us, the administration’s whole intent 

with respect to reinvigorating both diplomacy and development, we 

want to have oversight, we want—we also want to have partnership. We are not going—I don’t think in our core budget—we need 

a little bit more. 

So I think in the end, the pain will come mostly on our efforts 

to do the work of these independent commissions. But I want to 

speak a little bit about those commissions. I mean, that parliamentary commission that the two Davids lead, Price and Dreier, they 

do some remarkable things. They go out and meet—help build up 

and provide—show the parliaments of newly emerging democracies 

how to establish their sort of strength, their independence, their 

staffing, improve their processes, become more transparent. They 

provide a very valuable role. If building emerging democracies and 

strengthening parliamentary institutions in those countries is an 

important priority, I hate to see that pulled back. 

But you are right in the sense that we will have to live with 

whatever we get, and my guess is our ability to continue to be the 

conduit for as much funds as I would like to have for them would 

suffer more than the committee’s direct activities. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, as I understand it, there is the 

two-thirds/one-third agreement on your committee. Are you satisfied with that? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We are very satisfied that the chairman has 

been working with the minority in a very fair way and the minority 

does retain full control over the one-third of our salary budget, excluding shared staff and—such as our security officer, systems administrator, budget officer, certain administrative staff. And with 

respect to nonpersonnel items, I coordinate very well with the 

chairman on one-third of all nonpersonnel items like—including 

equipment upgrades, staff increases, if any, additions of any sort 

granted to the majority during the 111th Congress. 

So I have found Chairman Berman to be very fair to the minority 

in making sure that we retain full control of our one-third allocation. 

Thank you, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. BERMAN. Could I just add one thing? On these commissions, 

by the way, they are—obviously the temporary slot for Tanner is— 

money will come out of the committee. But Tanner is going to have 

one person to help him perform his job as chairman. But on the 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
26 

other two commissions, that is sort of a 50/50 split, as I understand 

it. It is a very shared nonpartisan approach to the whole thing. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I was just looking at your budget request and the 

upgrades that you want to make in your IT area, I think that is 

good. I just wanted to raise an issue—and you probably can’t answer today, so I am not asking you to. But there has been a concern raised by several Members about cyber security and Members 

who take their BlackBerries abroad and then all of the data is stolen or there is insufficient security, especially with mobile devices. 

And I am hopeful that since the members of your committee probably travel more than anyone else abroad, as they should, that 

some attention be directed to them to—the Members don’t always 

realize that they are putting sensitive information at risk. And if 

a staffer could be assigned to raise the consciousness of all of the 

committee members and staff on that point I would be very appreciative. 

Mr. BERMAN. The only thing I could answer right now, we are 

concerned about that. There was a story that came out about the 

hacking and it was particularly—I think it was some of the Foreign 

Affairs Committee computers. It was believed that hacking originated in a large country on the other side of the Pacific. But—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. The largest. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, Mr. Berman, there is also risky behavior 

that Members can engage in by visiting Web sites not realizing 

that they are actually opening up their systems to viruses and 

worms. And in some cases that has occurred—I don’t want to talk 

about in particular instances. 

So certainly we want to have vigorous cyber security in the institution of the House, but some of it is also educating our Members 

about what behaviors are risky—— 

Mr. BERMAN. We are bringing in the staff of our committee for 

an NSA briefing on the dangers of this. I personally have taken a 

principled position of not to use a BlackBerry in order to avoid security problems and restrict my e-mail account to e-mailing you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Which I appreciate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. BERMAN. And Lamar Smith. 

Mr. HARPER. And this question is for both of you or either of you. 

With the situation that we are in in the country right now, what 

would be the impact on your committee if these new positions remained unfunded through this year and was reevaluated at the 

end of the year? 

Mr. BERMAN. I think, number one, it hurts our ability to do the 

oversight that the House rules are now asking us to do vigilantly. 

I mean, this is a funny situation at this point. We have a very ambitious administration agenda in the foreign policy area by a new 

administration and a much more structured obligation to do oversight, which we should be doing on that administration, even as we 

try to work in partnership with them to achieve common goals. 

I will give you one example. On the majority side I have one majority staffer dealing with the Middle East. In addition to it being 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
27 

sort of an area that obsesses me, what we are talking here is the 

Arab-Israeli conflict, we are talking about Iran, we are talking 

about Gulf security, we are talking about comprehensive peace 

issues, we are talking about North Africa, a huge part of the focus 

of the terrorism issue. And I need to augment that. Without the resources, I won’t be able to do that and I will be less effective because of that. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I could just add, our U.S. foreign policy is an important part of our domestic agenda as well. As much 

as we can reach out to countries and explain what our message is 

and our belief in a strong democracy, rule of law, respect for 

human rights, I think it will bring down the needs, the domestic 

needs of our country in our national security concerns. So both 

issues are intertwined. Foreign policy is a domestic concern, and it 

brings down the cost of our security apparatus when we build 

friendships and relationships around the globe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I think also, Mr. Harper, if I may, 

what he was trying to say, that you come once for 2 years of funding. The previous committee was also asked if they could come 

back maybe once a year. It used to be that way with this committee. We used to have funding once a year. And maybe it is 

smart for you to project for a 2-year funding. And if need be, I 

would be agreeable to come back again after this year’s funding, as 

my ranking member so stated that we are limited in what we can 

give to all these committees. We don’t have the luxury of giving everything that you want. But if in another year if something comes 

up, especially your sensitive committee, you may need extra funding, we have no problem in entertaining the fact—try to fight along 

with you with our appropriators to get some more money for you. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, with that interesting idea, it may become a 

necessity. 

The CHAIRMAN. It may. We have no problem entertaining or 

doing it if need be. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And also it would give us an opportunity to review 

how these new functions are carried forward. 

Mr. BERMAN. In terms of the Commission’s work or the oversight 

work? 

Mr. LUNGREN. And in terms of—if you get an additional person 

in the Middle East, how that is working out. I mean, is it bolstering your ability to do what you need to do, those sorts of things 

that you hope will happen. After a year, we could see at least how 

far along you are on that progress or if there has been progress 

made. 

Mr. BERMAN. Another example. We have one—I have one full 

committee staff person to cover every issue involving Europe and 

Russia and Europe in the most expansive sense of the term ‘‘Europe.’’ I mean, one only has to read the paper every day to understand all the issues that subsumes. But I take your point. 

The CHAIRMAN. More money or another person? What are you 

saying, you need more money or another person? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will take both. 

Mr. BERMAN. Unless I can find a slave—— 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We are against that, Howard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
28 

I understand the Intelligence Committee is on their way. It will 

be a few minutes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoekstra may be on his way. He is stuck in 

another committee but we are ready to go with Intelligence with 

Chairman Reyes. And also I understand that Ranking Member 

Hoekstra did submit a statement for the record so we will accept 

that and we will proceed with you and hopefully he will get here. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. REYES. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

before you and my colleagues on the committee. Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to explain and describe the committee budget request for the House Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence for the 111th Congress. 

Given the current economic climate, the committee has redoubled 

its commitment to a program of fiscal restraint and has moderated 

its request to reflect our commitment. The committee is requesting 

only a 1.5 increase over our 2008 total budget authority for 2009. 

And for 2010, the committee is requesting an increase of less than 

1 percent over the 2009 total budget. There is no excess, Mr. Chairman, in this request, and the committee requires these funds to 

meet its responsibilities in the course of the 111th Congress. 

As you know, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has seen its committee membership increase by one this 

Congress, from 21 members to 22. The committee is authorized 44 

staff slots which allows for 5 designated support staff, 26 majority 

staff and 13 minority staff. At present the committee’s 13 majority 

members and 9 minority members are served by 37 on our staff to 

include 5 designated support staff, 21 majority staff, and 12 minority staff members who work in accordance with our rules at the direction of the of Ranking Member. 

Now that the committee has relocated from its office in the Capitol to the new much larger spaces in the Capitol Visitor Center, 

the committee anticipates filling as many vacant staff positions as 

necessary to fulfill our committee’s mission. As has been the case 

since the 106th Congress, the committee will abide by the twothirds/one-third allocation for personnel salaries in the 111th Congress, whereby the minority will control one-third of the budget for 

personnel salaries and lump sum payouts. And as was the case in 

the 110th Congress, the support staff will continue to support the 

entire committee, and the majority will continue to pay the entirety 

of support staff salaries during the 111th Congress. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, since September 

11, 2001, it has been imperative for the Intelligence Community to 

improve its intelligence capabilities significantly so that decision 

makers are well informed as they deliberate and determine the direction of national security and homeland security policies. In the 

past we have witnessed how the failure to provide and to coordinate intelligence capabilities can result in a breakdown in the formulation of policy and operational planning. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
29 

In the 111th Congress, the committee will endeavor to provide 

the Intelligence Community with the resources and capabilities 

that it needs to carry out this very critical mission to our national 

security. We anticipate a determined focus on the issues of terrorism, cyber security, effective intelligence support to the 

warfighter and to policymakers, the proliferation of weapons of 

mass destruction, and the penetration of hard targets such as Iran 

and North Korea. 

Unfortunately, world events continue to illustrate the vast number of challenges facing the Intelligence Community and these 

challenges require rigorous and vigilant oversight on the part of 

our committee. The committee views these responsibilities to conduct oversight not only in terms of threats posed to our Nation but 

also in terms of our Nation’s ability to disrupt these activities and 

to respond successfully to these threats. 

The committee is also committed to conducting the painstaking 

oversight required to reassure that the American people have an 

Intelligence Community that is fully observing its legal obligations. 

Mr. Chairman, the specifics of this committee’s budget and our 

request are directly supportive of the oversight activities that I 

have outlined in the discussion draft of the committee’s oversight 

plan for the 111th Congress. As I mentioned previously, the 2009 

budget request is a modest 1.5 percent increase over the 2008 total 

budget authority. The committee was very grateful that the budget 

allowance for the 110th Congress, especially the funding for 2008, 

was generous enough to allow the committee to replace and upgrade a significant portion of its equipment during our relocation 

from H–405 to the Capitol Visitor Center. As such, the committee 

has now appropriately scaled back the 2009 budget for equipment 

and associated maintenance and consultant contracts as we finalize 

a few information technology components that are associated with 

our move. 

Given this reduction in one budget line, the 2009 total increase 

reflects a 1.2 increase in the category of personnel compensation, 

a 35.7 percent increase in travel-related funding, the doubling of 

funds available for printing and reproduction, and a 20 percent increase in both supplies and materials category and the other services budget line. In order to fulfill our unique mission, the committee must recruit and retain highly qualified and cleared staff. 

The enlargement of committee space in the Capitol Visitor Center also allows us to fully staff our committee for the first time. As 

such, the increased funding for personnel compensation would permit retention of key personnel with unique expertise, as well as the 

expansion of committee staff. 

The committee’s obligation to exercise oversight over the Intelligence Community has intensified as the Intelligence Community 

has become more significantly engaged in every corner of the 

world. Given substantial increases in airfare, the cost of lodging, 

meals, parking, taxes and other associated costs, the recent genesis 

of a host of airline surcharges, the committee is requesting a 

$25,000 increase in our travel budget. The committee will continue 

to seek military escorts to mitigate the costs associated with commercial travel. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
30 

The oversight conducted by this committee is inherently classified in nature. However, I am dedicated to providing as much 

transparency as is possible. Too often the taxpayers are suspicious 

of the actions undertaken by elements of our Intelligence Community, especially in light of the programs revealed under the Bush 

Administration. It is my hope that the committee’s oversight work 

will serve to reassure the public that the men and women of our 

Intelligence Community are not the questionable characters they 

have been made out to be. Instead, these men and women are your 

friends and neighbors, patriotic public servants who sacrifice and 

serve our Nation quietly, without the expectation of recognition or 

accolades. 

In this vein, the committee anticipates a greater number of open 

hearings, an increase in printing and distribution of unclassified 

documents, reports, transcripts and the reuse of the committee’s 

compilation of intelligence laws and related laws and executive orders of interest to our national Intelligence Community. 

The 20 percent increase in 2009 in the ‘‘other services’’ budget 

category includes funding for the committee’s contract to host and 

update both the majority and minority Web sites. The increase also 

allows for more professional staff participation in intelligence-related conferences and seminars, makes available funds for continued information technology and security training for committee 

support staff, and provides moneys to complete the furnishings of 

our new spaces in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Notably in 2009, the committee will make several one-time representational expenditures to include the purchase of two committee crests, flags, and flag stands. The request also reflects a 60 

percent reduction in funding for consultant contracts, which in previous years have been overfunded. 

Finally Mr. Chairman, in 2008, due to unforeseen needs and increased costs, the committee exceeded the supplies and materials 

allocation by almost $4,000. The request for increased funding in 

this budget category for 2009 will correct this shortfall and adjust 

for inflationary costs. 

For 2010, the committee continues to exercise fiscal restraint 

with a requested increase of less than 1 percent over the 2009 total 

budget authority. This nominal increase in the total budget authority takes into account a modest cost-of-living adjustment of 2.8 percent for committee personnel and also provides upwards adjustments for anticipated inflationary costs for travel-related expenses 

and supplies and materials. The request is also indicative of a 

$70,000 reduction, or 22 percent decrease, in the equipment and related maintenance budget from 2009 to 2010. 

Mr. Chairman, the committee’s budget request for the 111th 

Congress is sound, ensuring an effective balance between fiscal responsibility and the need for appropriate oversight. The funds requested are the funds required for the committee to conduct our 

oversight properly and responsibly. As the exclusive overseer of the 

Intelligence Community for the U.S. House of Representatives, I 

give you my commitment that the committee will continue to act 

as guardian of the taxpayer monies that are used to finance our intelligence programs and to account for the programs intended to 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
31 

safeguard the Nation’s security and protect our individual freedoms. 

With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank 

you for your consideration of this request, and now I would welcome any questions that you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. 

[The information follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
32 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 51249A.014
33 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 51249A.015
34 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 51249A.016
35 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 51249A.017
36 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 51249A.018
37 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 51249A.019
38 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for the presentation, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It was one of the most succinct and extensive and 

actually very impressive testimonies we have had in the last couple 

of years that I have been here. As one who served on that committee in the 1980s, I appreciate the work that you do. And I am 

actually surprised. When I went up to some briefings in the Intelligence Committee last year, I found out that nothing had changed 

in the last 20 years in terms of the equipment that you had, the 

staffing space that you had. And you have now moved into new 

quarters, which are definitely needed. But I am surprised that you 

are not asking for additional funds. I appreciate very much your 

concern about the fiscal responsibility of your committee. 

Let me just ask you this. This is a committee that—over the 

last—well, from 105th to 110th Congress averaged an increase, 

Congress over Congress, of 17 percent, and then from 108th to 

110th Congress it was 14.7 percent. So you are asking now for a 

combined 3.7 percent. The concern is no less. That is, for the responsibility that you have, the terrorism that we have in our outside world is there, the need for intelligence is there, the need for 

oversight is there. 

Can you tell us how you are able to achieve your continuing responsibilities with such a fiscally responsible request? 

Mr. REYES. Well, absolutely. And thank you. And I was unaware 

that you were a member of this committee in the 1980s. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I just look a lot younger than I am. 

Mr. REYES. But I can tell you a couple of reasons. The first one 

is we have been able to invest in technology. We have now, thanks 

to the money that was available to us in 2007–2008 for the move 

down—the anticipated move down to the CVC, we are now able to 

support two different systems: one, a secure network that ties us 

in with the rest of the Intelligence Community and Department of 

Defense; and then, the regular one that will not be cleared for classified information, number one. 

Number two, we have had an opportunity since I took over as 

Chairman in 2007 to formalize the recordkeeping and all of the accounting systems that we found did not exist in a sensible fashion 

when I took over as Chairman. 

While you know, having been a chief in the Border Patrol, you 

never want to turn down money, we feel very comfortable that the 

submission that we have requested from the committee is ample 

enough to carry out our duties in oversight, making sure that the 

Intelligence Community provides this Nation with our utmost in 

protecting our national security. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be averse to coming back to this committee in a year or so that we could reassess where you are with 

your budget, see if you have been able to accomplish what you 

needed to accomplish? 

Mr. REYES. Absolutely not. I would be happy to come back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Lofgren, any questions? Mr. 

Harper? 

Mr. HARPER. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. We do have a statement from Mr. Hoekstra in 

the record. If anybody has to ask him a question, you can submit 

the question to the Clerk and we will get an answer for you. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, thank 

you for coming here today. And we look forward to hearing from 

you, hearing your testimony and whatever you have to say. The 

floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. SPRATT. Chairman Brady, General Lungren, members of the 

committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the 

Budget Committee’s funding request for the 111th Congress. For 

each session of this Congress the Budget Committee is requesting 

a funding level that is frozen, fixed at the end of last year’s level. 

In other words we are requesting the same allocation for 2009 and 

2010 as we enjoyed in 2008. 

The CHAIRMAN. Spoken like a true budget chairman. 

Mr. SPRATT. We think we are setting a positive symbol. Additional resources would be useful and welcome. But in light of the 

fiscal challenges facing the Federal budget, we believe that a continuation of the funding level provided for last year should be sufficient for the Budget Committee for the 111th Congress as well. 

Looking at the funding requests on an account-by-account level, 

the largest account by far is, as usual, the personnel account. In 

the last Congress our personnel costs were less than anticipated, 

substantially less because of some very significant vacancies on our 

staff, including the policy director, a degreed economist, and two 

budget analysts. We anticipate filling these vacancies in the new 

Congress and we believe that the proposed level of personnel compensation will allow us adequately to staff the committee with 

highly qualified staff. 

Our equipment budget allows for a continuation of regular upgrades of computer hardware and software and other equipment. 

Regardless of which party has been in the majority, we on the 

Budget Committee have prided ourselves on a collegial relationship 

with our counterparts in the Republican Party and with respect to 

the committee’s budget. When we were in the minority, we always 

had a mutually agreeable arrangement with the previous majority, 

an arrangement which we continued in the 110th Congress when 

we moved up to the majority. 

In consultation with the minority, we intend to continue this 

longstanding practice in the 111th Congress. The practice is that 

the minority controls one-third of the total budget for personnel, 

meaning a third of the available staff slots and a third of the line 

items for personnel. Additionally we will continue the committee’s 

past practice of upgrading the minority’s equipment and provide for 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
40 

other expenses for the minority out of the overall committee equipment and expenses budget. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have about 

the committee’s request, and thank you very much for your consideration and your support in past years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Spratt follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
41 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 51249A.020
42 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 51249A.021
43 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 51249A.022
44 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 51249A.023
45 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ryan. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL D. RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. RYAN. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Lungren, I am 

pleased to testify here concerning our committee’s funding resolution for the 111th Congress. I support Chairman Spratt’s request 

for the committee. Our committee has long been characterized by 

vigorous policy debates, but the proceedings of our committee are 

carried out in a very civilized manner. Chairman Spratt has set 

that example. Chairman Spratt has continued that tradition, and 

I think the two of us have enjoyed a cordial and professional working relationship over the past 2 years. 

I join the Chairman in recommending a disciplined funding level 

for the House Budget Committee. The recommended level freezes 

funding at the 2008 level, authorized for our committee. Our committee has a bipartisan tradition regarding the allocation of resources between the majority and the minority. I thank Chairman 

Spratt for keeping that tradition alive and well. 

The majority makes at least one-third of the personnel budget 

available for the minority, equipment for both majority and minority then comes out of a common fund on the same schedule and 

with the same quality for both sides. 

I have been assured, as you just heard in his testimony, by 

Chairman Spratt, that this will continue in the 111th Congress. 

This recommendation is a disciplined budget that treats the minority fairly. On that basis, I support the request and urge the Committee on House Administration to do so likewise. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
46 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 51249A.024
47 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. First of all, I thank you both for coming and 

thank you for your testimony and thank you most of all for your 

budget submission here. This is the second bit of good news we 

have had in a row here about committees telling us that they can 

do a good job while being very, very fiscally responsible. 

What would you say if we were to indicate to you that it might 

be the feeling of this committee that we ought to have committees 

come back, even though we have the approval of a full Congress 

for their budget request, come back after a year for us to take a 

look at how you have spent the money and see how the budget is 

forming up with what the responsibilities are as opposed to just 

having committees come to us once every 2 years? 

Mr. SPRATT. You mean once a Congress as opposed to—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right now we just have them come once a Congress. We are thinking about maybe having committees come back 

after the first of the year so we can review their budgets, see how 

the expenditures are going, and see in fact if it is in concert with 

the spending plan and the responsibilities that they thought they 

would have to carry out. 

Mr. SPRATT. I don’t have a problem with that. 

Mr. RYAN. Sounds fine to me. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. And, again, thank you for 

the presentation and thank you for setting an example for this 

Congress. 

Mr. SPRATT. Could I add one thing, please, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Ranking Member? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SPRATT. Out of the jurisdiction—not about the Budget Committee, about the committee I served on for 26 years, the House 

Armed Services Committee. In the years when the money was 

plentiful for staff and for committees, our committee was not as aggressive as it might have been. If you can help that committee, 

they can very much use the help to the advantage of the House, 

particularly with personnel. But also our committee room is one of 

the better committee rooms in the House because we have got lots 

of modern electronic devices, and that would greatly help that committee as well. It is a major meeting place or venue for briefings 

and things of that nature. If we could get better sound equipment 

and better visual monitors like these, I think it would be a plus for 

that committee and increase the quality of our work. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh that you 

have put that in the record. 

Mr. SPRATT. I didn’t ask for it. I volunteered it. I think it would 

be money well spent. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. Any questions, Ms. Lofgren, 

Mr. Lungren? Thank you. Thank you for being here today. 

We would like to welcome the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lucas. Thank you for appearing here today and we appreciate your promptness. We took you a little bit out of order because the Global Warming Committee is a little bit behind. But 

what they don’t know is that we take money, a percentage away 

for every 10 minutes they are late. And the committee that jumps 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
48 

ahead, we are much more favorable towards. So we look forward 

to your testimony. 

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

Mr. PETERSON. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

and members of the committee. And thank you for this opportunity 

to be here today. I appreciate Ranking Member Lucas joining me 

to outline our committee’s proposed budget for the next 2 years. 

Representative Lucas, as you know, takes over as Ranking Member 

for Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia who served as top Republican on this 

committee for 6 years. Mr. Lucas is a longtime member for the 

whole time he has been in Congress of the Agriculture Committee, 

and he knows well of the long proud history of bipartisan cooperation that has been the hallmark of our committee. 

Chairman, the House Ag Committee has a strong tradition of offering outstanding service to committee members and their staff 

from providing thoroughly researched materials related to legislation under the committee’s jurisdiction. This work is done despite 

modest staffing and budget resources in relation to committee size 

and standing within the House. I think this is a credit to the work 

of a highly qualified and experienced staff on both sides of the 

aisle. 

Given the workload that the committee will assume this year, we 

propose a moderate but necessary increase in funding. These resources will be essential to the committee’s success in the 111th 

Congress as we have planned an active and busy oversight agenda. 

We have working expeditiously on commodity and financial derivatives legislation. In fact we are having a markup tomorrow at 

1:00. Last year the committee held extensive hearings on the lack 

of transparency and oversight of the derivative markets. This work 

resulted in a strong bipartisan bill that received over 280 votes 

when it passed the House. It did not move in the Senate. Completing derivatives legislation has been a top priority of our committee since the 111th Congress began, as we have already had two 

hearings on the draft language with the intent of passing a strong 

bipartisan bill. 

Chairman, 2 years ago when I sat in this room, our committee 

was ready to begin the process of writing a new Farm Bill to authorize our Nation’s major farm conservation, nutrition and rural 

development programs. While that process may have taken a little 

bit longer than anyone on our committee would have liked, a Farm 

Bill was completed and enacted last May. Our committee is now focused on an effective timely implementation of the Farm Bill by the 

new administration. We have been working on that with the previous administration. 

We have had some issues that we have been able to generally resolve. One of them actually took us having to pass a bill to resolve 

it. But we intend to continue this vigorous oversight and we are 

going to make sure that the congressional intent is followed in that 

regard. 

The Agriculture Committee also plans to conduct active oversight 

in the area of food safety, which affects every congressional district 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
49 

and constituent in America. Last Congress, we held instructive 

hearings on recalls, traceability and new technology in the areas of 

food safety, and we intend to expand our efforts to ensure that the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture has the resources and procedures 

in place to protect the public from food-borne illnesses, at least 

within the areas where we have jurisdiction. 

In addition, our committee plans an aggressive top-to-bottom review of the Department of Agriculture. We will examine the Department’s structure, consider possible changes, strive to ensure 

that the agency is capable of meeting its goals and serving ranchers, farmers, and consumers. 

Mr. Chairman, there are some things we are undertaking for the 

first time that I would like to make your committee aware of. We 

are requesting a modest increase in resources in order to strengthen the committee’s Web sites, multimedia capabilities including 

webcasting and video functions. 

The committee would also like to increase investment in a redesign of the current Web site in order to make sure—make it more 

transparent and accessible to Members, staff, and to the general 

public. 

And, finally, I would again return to the process of writing a 

Farm Bill. Prior to the legislative work on the Farm Bill that our 

committee began in 2007, we have spent part of the previous Congress conducting a series of nationwide field hearings to hear from 

producers, processors, consumers, and advocates about farm nutrition and renewable energy policy. Those hearings were an invaluable resource for our members when writing the Farm Bill. And we 

intend to conduct the first set of Farm Bill field hearings in 2010, 

both to look back at the 2008 bill and to consider the future of food 

and farm policy. 

So thank you for your consideration of our budget request. I am 

confident that with the resources requested, our committee can 

continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to complete our agenda for 

the 111th Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
50 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 51249A.025
51 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 51249A.026
52 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 51249A.027
53 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 51249A.028
54 

The Chairman. Mr. Lucas. 

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

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Lungren, and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today 

in support of the Ag Committee’s 111th budget request alongside 

Chairman Peterson. As you just heard from Chairman Peterson, 

our committee has enjoyed a long history of bipartisanship and I 

plan to continue that spirit of cooperation as we proceed with the 

work of the committee in the 111th Congress. 

We have major tasks ahead of us with the implementation of the 

Farm Bill and monitoring the effects of the economic downturn in 

rural America. In addition to bipartisanship, the Ag Committee has 

a strong 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. It is my intention to work 

with Chairman Peterson and the members of the committee to ensure that this tradition is continued. And I ask that you grant us 

the funds requested to reach our goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Ranking Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
55 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 51249A.029
56 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

both of you for appearing before us. As you know, we are the authorizing committee. We have to work with the Appropriations 

Committee. We understand that if we granted all the requests from 

all the committees that come here, we would exceed what the Appropriations Committee is going to give us. So we will have to 

make some decisions with respect to committees. If in fact your increased request were required to take a haircut, do you have an 

idea where you would try to find those savings, what the priorities 

would be such that we would have some idea how that would affect 

your request? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, we are a practical bunch at the Ag Committee, and we will deal with it. We will adjust the resources to 

make sure that our obligations and responsibilities are taken care 

of. You know we are not out to, you know—I think our requests 

have been modest, and we actually returned money this last Congress that we didn’t spend. So I think we have been fiscally responsible. I guess one of—you know we are trying to—what I was expecting to do at the beginning of this Congress was get into this 

reorganization or look at USDA. Because of the financial crisis and 

so forth, I have spent all of my time working on this derivative 

stuff. But we are going to get to this. There seems to be an interest 

on the part of the new Secretary in looking at this. And if we are 

going to do this right, you know, this is going to take a lot of work 

and a lot of resources to get at what I think are some problems 

down at USDA. And it is not unique to them. 

But we have got big computer problems. You know they still— 

the county offices have AS 400s, they are writing in COBALT, if 

you can believe that. The programs that send out the checks to the 

farmers are still being written in COBALT. They have got system 

36s tied into the system. This thing has got to be brought into the 

21st century. So you know if we could get that computer thing 

fixed, you know I think we could really streamline a lot of things 

in the Department. But it is going to take a lot of work and it is 

going to take people on our staff that can help us get to the right 

conclusion. But if we don’t get what we are asking for, we will deal 

with it and adjust accordingly. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I don’t think it was addressed, but the question 

of staffing one-third/two-thirds, which is the principle that we operate on under here, is that reflected in—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. In this budget request? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You are satisfied? 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. One of the things we have been talking about is, 

because of what you mentioned about funding and trying to make 

the best educated guess we can on what the requirements are 

going to be and so forth, that even though we might authorize the 

2-year funding from here, that we might ask committees to come 

back after a year so that we can reassess and see whether, in fact, 

the obligations they had turned out to be that way and whether in 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
57 

fact the money that they requested was the money that they needed, or whether there was some review that was necessary. Would 

you be averse to—— 

Mr. PETERSON. No, not at all. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Coming back and reporting to us on 

how things are going? 

Mr. PETERSON. I would be happy to do it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Also that goes the other way. If we cannot give 

the amount of funds you are asking for, when you come back 

maybe we can increase it because you are doing such a good job, 

and you still have that need. So that will happen on both ends. 

Mr. Harper, no more questions. 

Thank you again for joining us. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We will take up the Committee 

on Global Warming. Mr. Markey is here. Mr. Sensenbrenner is not 

showing up, but he also does support your statement and supports 

your request. We thank you for coming and showing up here a little late. We do penalize people that come late percentage-wise by 

every minute. So you will be getting a little less than your request. 

So make it up in a better presentation. 

Chairman Markey. 

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you very much. Perhaps I can compensate 

by reducing the length of my opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. That will really work. You are right back on 

track, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. We can then add back on what it is that we receive. And I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lungren, for allowing me to come here this morning. 

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming was formed by Speaker Pelosi in March of 2007 and created by H.R. 202 in the 110th Congress. That resolution funded the 

committee for the 110th Congress, and consequently this is the 

first time for this committee to consider the work of the select committee. 

The select committee has 15 members, 9 Democrats and 6 Republicans. And Jim Sensenbrenner, as you pointed out, is the ranking member. And in our first year, we held 55 hearings. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, sir. Could you push that button for 

the microphone? I am sorry. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Excuse me. I apologize to you. 

Jim Sensenbrenner is the ranking member. In our first term, we 

held 55 hearings, covering topics that range from the geopolitical 

implications of global warming to the impacts of global warming on 

the Arctic, to biofuels and other renewable technology, to oversight 

of the Executive branch and the auto industry. In October, we published a report to the Speaker laying out our recommendations on 

these issues and a plan to move forward as we negotiate this climate crisis towards our green energy future. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
58 

Towards the goal of resolving these issues, the select committee, 

with Speaker Pelosi, traveled to Greenland, to Germany, to India 

for 8 days in order to fully explore the climatic and the international ramifications of moving forward on climate change legislation. And the Speaker’s participation in those trips that we took to 

these many countries over the last 2 years I think is in anticipation 

of the work which we are going to do this Congress as well. 

We have already been active at looking at our important energy 

and environmental issues. Last week we held our second hearing 

of this Congress to explore how the nations in the world can reach 

an agreement in Copenhagen in December of this year. We are prepared to match our success from the last Congress by holding educational hearings for our members and the public, several field 

hearings to highlight the regional challenges of global warming facing this country and the opportunity for success. 

We are asking for a very modest increase on our committee budget from 2008 to 2009, and I am pleased to report that Mr. Sensenbrenner supports the funding resolution and has agreed to cosponsor the resolution. The only significant change in our budget is to 

increase staff pay by the recommended cost of living adjustment for 

Washington, D.C., 4.7 percent. To accomplish this, we are asking 

for an increase to $2,096,000 for 2009. For 2010, we are asking for 

$2,070,600. Both years are a small increase from our 2008 appropriation. 

We use the recommended split of funds by providing one-third to 

the minority, two-thirds to the majority. Similarly we divide our 21 

staff positions, 7 to the minority, 14 to the majority. 

I obviously cannot speak for Mr. Sensenbrenner, but we have 

worked very closely together in a cooperative relationship in order 

to accomplish the goals which we have. 

Again, I apologize. I was on the floor waiting for my time to 

speak about our great chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, next to whom I have sat for the last 33 years 

as a Member of Congress, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to do that. 

[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
59 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 51249A.030
60 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 51249A.031
61 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 51249A.032
62 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 51249A.033
63 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lungren, questions? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. Thank you very much. And I thought you 

were going to use your Achilles as the reason you couldn’t get over 

here in time. I have tried that one and it sometimes works. So keep 

that one in your back pocket. 

We are the authorizing committee and we can either allow decisions that we make here to be the contours of the expenditures by 

the various committees or we can grant everybody’s requests and 

then, knowing that the appropriations subcommittee is not going to 

grant all that, have them do it. So I think we would rather exercise 

our jurisdiction in that regard, and that will require us to put haircuts on a number of, if not all of the requests that we have. We 

just can’t meet all of these requests. 

Are there some priorities that you have that you would protect 

more than others if you had to make some tough decisions with respect to the spending that you have got here? 

Mr. MARKEY. That is tough, principally because President Obama 

and the Speaker have both said that global warming and energy 

are their signature issues for these first 2 years. So in order to 

meet the incredible schedule which is going to be created to deal 

with these issues and knowing that they are moved up to the very 

top of the list amongst all the important issues, it is a difficult— 

that would be a difficult decision for me to make, to be honest with 

you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If you were a committee that had just started and 

had trouble starting up and then was going to have a tremendous 

increase in the work that you were going to do over the first year, 

I could see a significant increase or even a modest increase. But 

you came out of the chute really working. You have had 55 hearings. You had those educational efforts. You had the international 

travel, and I just think you guys really worked hard last time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You are probably going to continue to work hard. 

Anyway, those are the kinds of things we have to keep in mind 

here. Because as I say, otherwise we grant everybody close to what 

they want or what they want and then the appropriators decide. 

And it just seems to me that we are supposed to be the authorizing 

committee. So we are going to have to make some tough decision. 

And if you could help us with any guidance on that, it would be 

beneficial. 

The other thing I would just ask is this. Because of the difficulty 

that we are having with the economy this year and as we are looking at requests, there is some thought that we have the chairman 

and the ranking member come back to us after a year. In other 

words, we make the decision with respect to the budget, a 2-year 

budget, but come back and we take a fresh look at how you are 

doing, what you are doing, and how much of an increase in activity 

you have, those sorts of things. Would you be adverse to coming 

back? 

Mr. MARKEY. Absolutely not. And I think we will have plenty of 

evidence to justify the budget which is granted to us this year. No, 

I would be more than willing to. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mr. MARKEY. Might I just say, Dan, that when the Speaker and 

I talked about this 2-year period, we actually talked about the 

amount of time it was going to take. So we agreed that perhaps I 

should leave the Homeland Security Committee just so it freed up 

more time to work on this. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And I noticed that. 

Mr. MARKEY. I hope that is one of the reasons that you might 

look more favorably upon—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. That you left Homeland Security? 

Mr. MARKEY. The fact that I am not on the committee anymore. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I see. You are pulling out all the stops. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are looking for sympathy now, I understand. 

Flattery is better. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, no, not sympathy. I am looking for gratitude. 

Mr. Lungren and I have—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Flattery is still above all. 

Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Chairman Markey, thank you very much. I appreciate it. My understanding—of course I can ask this as a rookie— 

your committee has no legislative authority; is that correct? 

Mr. MARKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. HARPER. Is there any intent that it will move towards that 

in future Congresses, to have legislative authority? 

Mr. MARKEY. No. In fact, the Speaker has made clear this is the 

final 2 years for the existence of this committee. So what she has 

laid out as her goal and why she asked me to stay on for the next 

2 years, she wants to make these 2 years the energy independence 

and global warming 2 years. And so I, you know, have left the 

Homeland Security Committee, I have redoubled all my energies on 

this subject at her request, but with her goal of having completed, 

you know, an agenda in these areas by the end of these 2 years. 

Mr. HARPER. And if energy independence is a goal that we have, 

has your committee taken a position on the drilling for oil in 

ANWR and for offshore exploration? 

Mr. MARKEY. We would not cast votes on it, but we would conduct hearings that would make it possible to have the Members of 

the House fully informed as to what the countervailing considerations were in casting a vote on that issue. 

Mr. HARPER. Is there a mood that you would support the drilling 

for oil in ANWR as part of the energy independence goal? 

Mr. MARKEY. In ANWR I would put it lower on the list. But as 

Mr. Lungren knows, last September in the House we voted to open 

up consideration for new areas for drilling in the Outer Continental 

Shelf. Now, I do believe sensitive areas should be protected, including Georgia’s Bank. But with that said and that kind of protection 

built in, I did vote to open up that whole debate in terms of where 

we should be drilling. 

So I am not saying anything other than that it is now time for 

us to do this comprehensive review of all of these issues. And yesterday Secretary Salazar actually announced the beginning of this 

comprehensive review of the Outer Continental Shelf with my support so that we can begin that process. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. HARPER. That legislation, did it include revenue sharing for 

the States? 

Mr. MARKEY. I think there was some revenue sharing that was 

included in that legislation. I can’t remember the exact proportion 

that was included. But there was some, yes. 

Mr. HARPER. Will this committee work towards a recommendation as far as clean coal technology is concerned? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. In fact, we have had a number of hearings on 

that subject, including the Governor of Wyoming, who recommended that we include multi-billions of dollars in clean coal 

technology. The chairman of this committee is a fierce advocate for 

that position. In fact, I think because of the kinds of hearings we 

had in the last 2 years, there is now a consensus between liberals 

and conservatives in the Congress that the debate is not over 

whether or not we are going to fund clean coal technologies, but 

over how much. 

So, for example, in the stimulus package, at my recommendation, amongst others, there is $2.4 billion on the House side of the debate for clean coal technology research, carbon capture, and sequestration. On the Senate side, it is about $4 billion. So that is what 

the debate is over, how many billions we spend, not over whether 

or not we want to reach a day where clean coal technology is part 

of the energy mix in our country. 

Mr. HARPER. And one final question, have you taken a position 

as far as carbon tax or cap and trade or, C, none of the above? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. President Obama has called for a cap and 

trade system. The Europeans are moving towards a cap and trade 

system. The cap and trade system which the Europeans are putting 

in place is based upon the 1990 Clean Air Act, acid rain bill, which 

was a cap and trade system that ultimately over about a 4-year period pretty much solved the problem. 

So I think if we are going to square up with the Europeans and 

then turn to the Indians and the Chinese with kind of a unified 

position for them to be included in any ultimate program, I think 

a cap and trade system makes the most sense because the Europeans already have one. It has already worked for acid rain, sulfur, 

and nitrogen oxide in our country, and I think if we move to carbon 

and other greenhouse gases that it makes the most sense to move 

in that direction? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Harper. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in recess until 12:30. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. FRANK. The Committee on Financial Services has been funded at a much lower level than I think the level of activity and the 

number of members justifies. We are the second biggest committee. 

We had asked the Speaker to get smaller, but we got bigger by one. 

And we have been thrust into a very high level of activity, things 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
66 

like the automobile issue, financial restructuring, the TARP. And 

frankly I feel terribly guilty about the people who work for the 

committee and how overworked they are and overstressed. We, as 

I said, I think have been as active as any committee in the House, 

more active than most, not by anybody’s design. But because of 

where we are, we will continue to have that load going forward 

with the regulatory restructuring, for example, a major set of responsibilities for us. 

And so what we are asking for is an increase, frankly, from 16 

million to 19 million. It is an 18 percent increase, but I think if you 

look at other committees of comparable size and degree of activity, 

that that is appropriate. And I have always felt that the greatest 

bargain the American people get are the people who work for us, 

people of enormous talent who could be making a lot more money 

in other contexts, maybe not so much last year but in a normal situation, and I feel very guilty about the extent to which they are 

overworked. And as I said, if you look at the agenda, it is a very 

heavy one. 

[The information follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
67 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 51249A.034
68 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 51249A.035
69 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bachus, would you like to make any statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SPENCER BACHUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you put your mic on, please? Just push 

that button. 

Mr. BACHUS. I don’t think there is just anyone in America that 

doesn’t realize the number of issues facing the Financial Services 

Committee. And as the chairman said, there is a lot of work, the 

staff is spread pretty thin. We have been given the additional oversight over TARP, which is requiring two full-time staffers on our 

side, probably more than that on your side. 

So with that I will just—— 

Mr. FRANK. Let me just add, the ranking member makes a very 

good point. Yesterday and today we have had oversight hearings on 

the commitment of nearly $3 trillion in Federal funds that had not 

been anticipated when our budget was funded 2 years ago, because 

we had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve yesterday talking 

about $2 trillion, which the Federal Reserve has committed, which 

they hadn’t expected to do before, using authority that hasn’t been 

used since the 1930s. And then today we are having a hearing on 

the second 350 of the TARP. So those two items—and again, they 

were totally off anybody’s radar screen when we were first funded. 

It is $2.7 trillion. And we all wish that we could say this is the end 

of it, but we don’t think so. 

So that is the basis for our request. 

Mr. BACHUS. The government has basically gone into the quasibanking business over the last year. In fact, if you look back at 

July of last year, I think Bernanke came to the Hill and painted 

a fairly rosy picture. And just the tumult over the last year, and 

it is in every sector of the financial services industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Questions, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Is the Secretary of the Treasury testifying before you folks today? 

Mr. FRANK. No, we had the eight—we had and will have—we 

have been doing—the eight CEOs of the largest institutions to get 

TARP money. So the Secretary of the Treasury isn’t testifying, but 

his money is. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I was just hoping you might have a little more detail than we had yesterday. I was looking forward to what he had 

to say. 

Mr. FRANK. May I make a point again? The ranking member will 

know this. One of the things that we have gotten is a large number 

of requests from our colleagues. When our colleagues are hit by 

their constituents with questions about the TARP or this or that, 

they forward them to us. We try to respond, but that is another 

strain on our staff. Frankly we have become to some extent kind 

of a service bureau for other Members who are being asked by their 

constituents what about this, that or the other, both in the foreclosure area and in the question of new loans. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As I understand it, there is agreement in your 

committee, one-third, two-thirds—— 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. FRANK. Two-thirds, one-third. The ranking member can obviously speak for himself. I can’t remember a dispute we have had 

about how to allocate the funds or how to use staff. I believe our 

staffs get along together very well. There is a great deal of cooperation. So I don’t think there is any problem on that score at all. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As you mentioned in your opening statement, this 

is a significant increase request that you are making. It is one of 

the larger ones of the committees that we have. We have been basically informed by the Appropriations Committee that the range in 

which they are going to approve for legislative functions does not 

encompass all the requests that we are having. So we are going to 

have to make some judgments or leave it up to them, and I think 

this committee, being the authorizing committee, ought to do the 

tough work and make those decisions. 

If you were required to do a haircut for the request that you 

have, are there certain priorities you have over others? Is there 

some guidance you could give us as to how you would approach 

that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, Mr. Lungren, our request doesn’t differentiate. 

And frankly I would say in our case, the ranking member and I 

have been more reactive. I wish we had the ability to say here are 

our priorities. But we have basically spent a year opening the door 

and people come in and say you have got to pass 700 billion in 3 

days and you have got this trillion and we have got these foreclosures. I think there are some things that would suffer if we 

didn’t get the funding. Some of the oversight on some of the ongoing organizational activity would get hurt. We don’t differentiate in 

our requests. 

Mr. BACHUS. Just to tell you the range of—today we had testimony consistent from the CEOs, the largest seven financial institutions, which is consistent with what the regulators are saying to 

us. And they are saying basically we have got to rewrite our entire 

regulatory system in an effective way. I mean, that seems to be the 

consensus across the board. Systemic regulator. So we have housing, we have foreclosure issues. The bill that may pass tomorrow 

has additional housing programs in it. The economy turns down 

and—I mean, I think we all know the number of foreclosures—not 

just residential, but commercial and it—probably on a daily basis 

our staff, because we simply can’t do it. We will have CEOs of regional banks that come up here and some of them are as panicked, 

as I have seen. Developers, car dealers, I mean the auto hearings 

were in our committee, credit. So normally I could say, you know, 

credit availability is more of a consideration than lending or—you 

know, or lending, but is a systemic regulation for housing or foreclosures—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me just add this because you brought something up, Barney, that is interesting. You say you open the door 

and things come in. You can’t totally anticipate because you are reactive. We have been talking about the fact that while we will approve a 2-year authorization, that it might be good for this committee to have committees come back after a year and take a look 

at what has happened. We could get an idea, particularly for a 

committee like yours where you are—— 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. FRANK. I think respectfully if that had been the case, we 

would have been here a year ago, because it became clear a year 

ago because there was an enormous increase in what we were 

being asked to do. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You would not be adverse to that if we ever make 

that decision? 

Mr. FRANK. Not at all. The Federal Reserve has gone from not doing anything to spending—to allocating, lending $1.9 trillion 

under authority that dates from the 1930s. And a couple of the Republican members point out that there is no oversight, that they 

are exempted from oversight. We have to change that. But that is 

a lot of people. And my Chief of Staff reminds me that 96 percent 

of our budget goes for salaries. We are not spending a lot on sort 

of fancy stuff. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You don’t have to trouble too much. The problems 

come to you. 

Mr. BACHUS. I have never over the last 2 years, particularly over 

the last year and a half, our staff has been here on Saturday and 

Sunday, at night and as has the Treasury staff and sometimes the 

Federal Reserve. I get phone calls at home on Sunday from the 

Federal Reserve officials. But our staff—the other thing that the 

chairman mentioned—in fact, there was a derogatory article in one 

of the newspapers that—about Members of Congress simply—you 

know, they talked about issues that they really didn’t grasp. Well, 

it is absolutely right. When you start talking about credit default 

swaps and all this stuff, I mean, so educating the committee is just 

an overwhelming job. It is like—— 

Mr. FRANK. Would the gentleman yield? Our staffs are available 

to our colleagues and our colleagues’ staffs because this is—I do 

think if you look at the Congress, the Committee on Financial 

Services has had a bigger increment of new stuff to deal with than 

anybody else and it is not going away for a while. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I hope that the 

chairman and the ranking member take this into account when it 

comes time to timing me in about 15 minutes. A little light. I just 

want to echo what the chairman and the ranking member both 

said. I mean, I am on the committee and I will tell you unequivocally, number one, that the staff does a great job. They do a fantastic job. They answer every question. If they don’t know it, they 

find it out. It is very professional. I can echo that 100 percent. I 

can also tell you unequivocally that they are completely overworked 

because of this new stuff. This new stuff is overwhelming to everybody. I don’t care how smart you are, how much experience you 

have had in the past, this is all new stuff for all of us. And the 

truth is, I am just looking at the numbers and as I count it, even 

with this request, if the requests were granted dollar for dollar and 

every other committee got what they asked for, you would still only 

be the fourth largest budget in the Congress. I personally think 

that is again in today’s world probably not the right place to be. 

And it amazes me. I think 30 new positions—I am afraid you 

might not be able to get that many positions with the money you 

are asking for. I think you might have to ask for more money at 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
72 

some point. Because again, as you just said, I think we have had 

the problem—we definitely have the problem with the SEC, we 

have the problem with the FDA and the PTO. People who know 

this stuff can go out and make a lot more money than we can pay 

them. If we can’t keep them, we will be at a disadvantage, particularly in the next year or so. 

I for one over the last several years have been very upset how 

Congress as a whole, both bodies, have ceded our authority and our 

responsibility, in my opinion, to the Executive branch. I think we 

continue to do that. I think the only way to get back any of our 

responsibilities and authority is for us to have the abilities to simply have a discussion, a thoughtful, knowledgeable conversation in 

debate. And if we don’t arm ourselves properly with the appropriate people, we will be at a disadvantage and it will be to our 

regret and to the regret of our constituents. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Can I put you down as undecided on their budget? 

Mr. CAPUANO. You can, but—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I am confused. Michael told me he wanted to 

grill you and all you are doing now is patronizing him. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Damn right I am patronizing him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why don’t you tell him in front of your face what 

you are willing to do? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Oh, no. Because in 5 minutes he is going to have 

the gavel again and I will have be to nice to him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, how long do you anticipate this 

same level of activity for your committee? Any prediction? 

Mr. FRANK. Good question. I believe that at the end of this 2 

years, it should have abated for a couple reasons. First of all, we 

have a major rewrite. You are going to see, I think, the most important rewrite of financial regulatory legislation since the New 

Deal probably. People may think one way or the other, at least the 

contemplation. I do think a lot of that will be done by the end of 

this year, by the end of this Congress. Similarly, we hope that they 

may be coming back for more money, for something like the TARP. 

Once again, we don’t see that as an ongoing effort. 

For a lot of reasons, we hope that there will be an abatement 

after the current crisis. The current crisis comes more to the Committee on Financial Services than any other. So the answer is if we 

succeed 2 years from now in getting out of this, then our workload 

will level off and drop some. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One real 

quick question. You have the eight CEOs, top CEOs in the country? 

Mr. FRANK. The which? Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. How did they arrive? 

Mr. BACHUS. By hybrid car, donkey, and I think a few—— 

Mr. FRANK. I read somewhere that a few—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say donkey? 

Mr. FRANK. I read somewhere that they were taking—well, a 

couple of them come from New York. 

Mr. BACHUS. One of them we picked up at the Greyhound Bus 

station. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
73 

The CHAIRMAN. Hang glide a few to the—listen, you are doing a 

great job under real tough circumstances. Thank you for giving us 

your time. 

Mr. FRANK. I appreciate it. I come here because I do think our 

committee has worked very well on a bipartisan basis, including I 

would note the Parliamentarian of the committee today is the man 

who was the Parliamentarian when Mr. Oxley was chairman. I 

think that is an example of the continuity. 

Mr. BACHUS. We have bankers from all over. In fact, we get calls 

from the Senate. I won’t say the Senator, but he said, the folks 

over here tried to explain something to our bankers. They came 

over, they met with the chairman’s staff and my staff and they said 

to us, these guys, these men and women know what they are doing. 

I got a call back from a Senator and he said they got the answer 

they needed. 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for coming here 

today. 

I need you to note that Ms. Lofgren would be here. She is stuck 

in a delegation meeting. She didn’t want to show you any disrespect by not being here as a member of your committee. But we 

thank you for being here and we welcome you and welcome your 

testimony. 

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

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy 

to be here and see so many friends of mine. My good friend Dan 

Lungren is here and Zoe Lofgren is on the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, would you just push that button? 

There is a button right there for your microphone. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Chairman Brady and Mr. Lungren, I am here to talk about our 

budget request on Judiciary. Lamar Smith has asked me to ask 

permission to put his testimony in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
74 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 51249A.036
75 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 51249A.037
76 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 51249A.038
77 

Mr. CONYERS. We have talked about it and we find ourselves in 

agreement. 

As is known, the Judiciary Committee is quite active. We have 

had responsibilities in the last 6 to 8 years that have called upon 

us to consider complex activity, the Constitution, amendments, the 

Department of Justice, immigration laws, trademark, copyright, 

patents. It goes on and on. We get a large amount of all the legislative measures that come out of the committee. We have reported 

bills, dozens and dozens of bills, and I don’t want to sound like I 

am bragging about the kind of work we do but you have my statement before you. 

The one new thing that has occurred that is taking a lot of our 

staff and resources is the allegations of misconduct of Federal 

judges. We have an impeachment inquiry going on concerning a 

district judge, and so we have had to create a bipartisan task force 

to work on that. 

The bottom line is that we come before the committee to request 

a budget increase of 6 percent this year and 4 percent the year 

afterward. Ms. Lofgren. And we have a practice—a custom in our 

committee to work on a very bipartisan way. It is really more collegial than bipartisan because people take views that may be different from what might generally be considered the accepted position from where their party might be. But out of that tradition has 

come the practice of shared employees; that is, employees who don’t 

work for one side of the aisle or the other. They are doing common 

work that is not partisan, and it has worked quite successfully. It 

started—well, actually it goes back to the Rodino days, the Brooks 

days, there were some others, chairmen that have always practiced 

it. And so have I in the one term that I have been privileged to 

be the Chair of the committee. 

So what we are doing now is honing our technology, our 

workforces. We have equitable arrangements in terms of the allocation of resources and I think our requests are reasonable, and we 

seek the support of this committee in allowing us to proceed in the 

manner that we have for so many years before I was chairman. 

This is the one committee that I have been on all my life in the 

committee. It was John McCormack in Ways and Means. I got on 

the committee when I came to the Congress, and finally in the 

110th I became its chairman. And I am very privileged to be working with the men and women who serve on the Judiciary Committee, and I hope that our presentation with Lamar Smith will 

continue to win their approval and yours as well. 

So I thank you all very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
78 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 51249A.039
79 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 51249A.040
80 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 51249A.041
81 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 51249A.042
82 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 

let me say that I understand that Mr. Smith intended to be here 

but he was interrupted in his duties today and cannot be here. But 

he has a statement that he is submitting for the record and it is 

in support of the request for this committee. 

Having served on this committee all my years in Congress, I 

must say that it is done on a collegial basis. We have maybe the 

strongest adherence on either side of just about every issue. So in 

some ways we don’t call it bipartisan, but we can call it collegial. 

And the chairman has always been a gentleman in the way that 

he operates the committee. And his statement reflects the fact, as 

does Mr. Smith’s, that there is a one-third, two-thirds on all but 

the shared employees, and that there is an understanding of the 

allocation of other resources on the committee as well that is acceptable to the minority. I take that to be the case, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Exactly. And the committee does have a good deal 

of work. You are above the average in the request overall compared 

to other committees, believe it or not based on our calculations, but 

you have explained why, the seriousness of the issues and the multiplicity of the issues we have. 

Let me just ask this. We are going to be circumscribed by what 

we do by what the Appropriations Committee does and the indication we got is that we cannot grant all the full requests made by 

all the committees and therefore if we just go ahead and do that, 

the Appropriations Committee will make the judgments as opposed 

to us. So it is going to fall upon us to make some tough decisions. 

If we were to do some haircuts in the judiciary area, are there 

priorities or is there some methodology that you and Mr. Smith 

have talked about in terms of where you would have to make adjustments? 

Mr. CONYERS. I can’t say that we have, Dan. We never talked 

about what if we didn’t get our request. I didn’t realize ours were 

above average in our submission. But he and I could do an examination and get such a list to put in the record just in case we come 

to that. I don’t want to—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I don’t want you to make you commit on that 

right now. What I would ask is this, then. There has been some 

discussion in this committee as we listened to the other committee 

recommendations or requests that while we will have authorizing 

legislation with respect to funding for the entire Congress, that we 

believe it might be appropriate to have the committees come back 

to us at the end of this fiscal year, at the end of this year, to revisit 

where we are, both to see how the requests have stacked up 

against the work that the committee has done and also see if there 

is changed circumstances with respect to what the committee 

might need. And I would take it you would not be adverse to that? 

Mr. CONYERS. Not at all. Not at all. You know, I have always 

had a good relationship with this committee and I realize your 

work—I mean, I understand that you probably get requests that in 

the aggregate exceed what you are able to do anyway. But I have 

never had any problem with the decisions that have come out of 

this committee, nor have I had any problems ever inside the committee in terms of the allocation of resources and funding and 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
83 

equipment or anything else we have had. And, of course, those of 

you who are members know this as well as I do, and I am going 

to abide by what happens. 

I just hope that in this big notebook that I skipped over that 

there is enough logic and rationale for what we are asking for and 

perhaps a review of any way that we have handled our budget before now that will guide you in terms of us being reasonable about 

what it is we are doing and how we propose to get there. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I am sorry I was a little bit late. I was over in the Capitol trying to assist on the stimulus plan, which looks like it is proceeding in good order. 

I would first like to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership that you have shown. Oftentimes the issues that are before 

the committee are contentious, but the relationship you have developed with the ranking member and the other members of the committee has never been contentious. And it is a real credit to you, 

as well as to Mr. Smith that even as these issues that divide us 

sometimes come up, it has never been divisive in terms of personality or anything of that nature. And it is really a credit to you, 

and I appreciate it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. One question I have—and as you know, I chair the 

Immigration Subcommittee. And I have just taken one of the counsels from the subcommittee to move over to Ethics. So we are going 

to need to fill that spot. And I want to make sure there will be 

enough funding actually to do that. And I am also concerned—you 

have had the greatest detailee from the Department of Justice who 

has been such a help not only to you but to all of the rest of us, 

whether it is on FISA or immigration, and he obviously has—may 

very well go to the administration. So I don’t know whether we get 

another detailee or do we have enough money in the budget if you 

have to hire somebody to backfill for him? This is a little bit more, 

but I think it is well justified. I have served on the committee for 

a long, long time and I want to make sure that the resources that 

you have are adequate, at least in those two areas that I have mentioned. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I just ask my Chief of Staff, Perry 

Applebaum. I don’t have a specific answer for that, but if I could 

just check with him. Are we covered in case we lose a staffer to 

the administration? 

Mr. APPLEBAUM. Yeah. The idea would be to treat all the subcommittees equally, but we would hope to get either a replacement 

detailee or figure out something. 

Mr. CONYERS. We would never let the Chair of the Immigration 

Subcommittee down under any circumstances. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that that is true, Mr. Chairman. Well, 

since we are going to be coming back again at the end of the fiscal 

year, if there is a problem, we will have an opportunity to address 

it then. And, again, I just say these words with tremendous admiration for you and gratitude that I have had a chance to serve with 

you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
84 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Chairman Conyers, I just want to tell you it is an 

honor to serve with you on Judiciary and I just wanted to tell you 

I appreciate the fair way in which you handle our hearings. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. And welcome aboard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I just want to thank you, Mr. Conyers. I think he 

has done a great job and I think he has restrained himself quite 

admirably in the last 2 years, and my hope is that restraint comes 

off in the next 2. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I just say to Mr. Capuano that the one thing 

that I have learned is that to have an honest exchange of views 

where there are very different opinions, it is best to be fair. The 

more reasonable you are, the more likely you are to have your direction acceded to. So I hope I continue to be considered a nice guy 

because it works better than not being a nice guy. I mean, let us 

just—maybe I have a different experience from others, but to me 

to take advantage of the parliamentary process or the numbers of 

the committee and, you know, straight ahead with the torpedos, it 

doesn’t work. And in an atmosphere where such incredibly important ideas are being examined, frequently constitutional in nature, 

I mean to have an honest exchange, to know that you can come to 

a place and your view will be heard and that you will be given consideration regardless of how much it may differ from the chairman’s or the majority or whoever, to me makes everybody more 

amenable to working out sometimes when there has to be a compromise. 

So I appreciate always—you know, we are not short of members 

here that have a Judiciary Committee experience. So I feel I am 

in safe hands here this afternoon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also think you are 

a class guy. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member. Thank you for being here today, and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This microphone is 

really loud or live. 

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to come and present our 

budget proposal for the coming 2 years of the 111th Congress. 

Thank you, Mr. Lungren, for your participation, and that of all the 

members, and, Mr. Mica, my partner in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We are the largest committee in the 

House, the largest committee in either the House or Senate. And 

in the 110th Congress we made extraordinary progress on the 

many issues under the jurisdiction of our committee. We passed 

landmark legislation on rail safety, the first overhaul of rail safety 

in 100 years; the authorization of Amtrak, including high-speed 

rail—I call the Mica-Brown—Brown-Mica-Oberstar Passenger Rail 

Initiative, which is going to transform the landscape of passenger 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
85 

rail service in America. We had the first override of a Bush administration veto, only the 107th in the history of the Congress, on the 

Water Resources Development Act. We implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we enacted legislation for energy efficient transportation, public buildings energy efficiency, the greening of the Department of Energy headquarters with a photovoltaic 

roof, a project that has languished for 12 years—actually 30 years. 

I started that over 30 years ago. And we had 26 markups of 143 

bills and resolutions passed the House, 93 of which became public 

law. 

We held very vigorous, in-depth oversight in investigative work 

in hearings on the agencies and programs under our jurisdiction. 

We found serious lapses in the Coast Guard’s management of the 

Deepwater Program, putting to waste literally $100 million of taxpayer funds, the result of which was to change the Coast Guard’s 

contracting program and make it more efficient and more responsive for the future. 

We conducted oversight of the FAA’s oversight of maintenance by 

the airlines. We found regulatory lapses and abuses of their partnership program. We held oversight of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, management of the drug and alcohol program, medical oversight of commercial drivers, and Homeland Security Department’s management of the Federal Protective Service, 

which also comes under jurisdiction of our committee. 

In all, we had 174 hearings, 1,245 witnesses, 588 hours of hearings, and including I can say, having served on the committee for 

44 years as staff and as a Member, the most active 2 years in the 

committee’s history. We will have an equally challenging agenda in 

the 111th Congress. We have a hearing this afternoon on the FAA 

reauthorization which we already passed in the 110th Congress in 

September of 2007. The Senate didn’t act on it. We have to update 

that legislation and make some adjustments. We will have the 

hearing this afternoon, have the markup following the Presidents 

Day recess, bring the bill to the House floor for early March so we 

can get this bill in conference with the Senate before the end of 

March and get a bill to the President for signature. 

We have the new—what I would call a transformational surface 

transportation bill, a 6-year authorization of the program’s highway—bridge and highway safety and transit. In 2005, the committee moved a bill authorizing $286.3 billion. We have to go far 

beyond that to meet the transportation needs of the country out 

into the future, and we have had intensive hearings in the Surface 

Transportation Subcommittee and in full committee on the various 

proposals from all sectors, evaluating the operational effectiveness 

of existing law and getting ideas on how to craft a meritorious future for—a transformational future for surface transportation in 

this country. 

We will again revisit the Coast Guard authorization bill which 

passed the House, but typically didn’t pass the Senate. That is an 

$8.5 billion program. We need to move that legislation again. We 

are preparing to do that. We will do so expeditiously. 

The range of other programs, we will have another Water Resources Development Act to upgrade our inland waterways, provide 

protection against flood and flood damage and levies, continue our 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
86 

work in the restoration of the wetlands of the Gulf and the harbors 

on the Great Lakes where drought has limited the ability to deliver 

iron ore to our steel mills and coal to lower lake power plants. 

Those harbors have been 40 to 48 inches low, meaning iron ore carrying vessels, coal carrying vessels, sand and gravel operations 

have had to make three extra trips per voyage—per season—I am 

sorry—raising the transportation costs of the materials carried. We 

need to move the Corps of Engineers ahead vigorously on deepening those ports and overcoming years of neglect of dredging. We 

will have reauthorization of the Water and Wastewater Treatment 

State Revolving Loan Program, which passed the Congress—the 

House in the 110th Congress, but again the Senate didn’t act on 

it. 

All these were bipartisan bills that Mr. Mica and I worked on 

very closely and very cooperatively and productively. Our budget is 

essentially the same budget as we had in the 110th Congress with 

a 5 percent cost of living adjustment, which is equal to that of the 

Federal Government for Federal employees and equal to or just 

slightly below the Consumer Price Index increase, 5 percent this 

year and 5 percent for next year. That would be roughly $500,000 

a year. And our budget also provides for the Republican members 

of the committee under Mr. Mica’s leadership to receive one-third 

of the salary budget. We will not have a separate minority budget 

for travel and equipment as we have done in the past under Republican leadership in the previous Congress. But we have worked on 

travel requests and needs cooperatively, and we will do so in the 

future. 

And I thank you for your consideration of our request. 

[The statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
87 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 51249A.043
88 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 51249A.044
89 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 51249A.045
90 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 51249A.046
91 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 51249A.047
92 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 51249A.048
93 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to be back, 

and I am glad that you have risen to the position that you have, 

having been up on the dais and served on the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. I always like your style. No BS. You have cut right 

to the chase and got things done. I appreciate what you have done 

so far in that regard. I truly mean that. 

I was looking at Thomas here. How come you don’t have that 

drape? I remember Thomas and Steny Hoyer, you all—I don’t know 

if you all were here when they used to go at it. Dear God, I felt 

like I was a referee in a food fight. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been getting—— 

Mr. MICA. Lungren, he is a lovable ranking member. But thank 

you all. And Jim Oberstar has really said what needs to be said 

on behalf of the committee. We support the request. 

I will say with a caveat on the increase, we are trying to ask people to cut back and if we had to go to a lower increase, I could be 

supportive of that and I think we ought to look at the end—I know 

you are going to look at the end of the year and see what we can 

do to tighten our belt, too. So I would be supportive. Travel, we do 

have our little issues on that, but we try to work them out. I wish 

we had a little bit more independence on that on the minority side. 

But it is the biggest committee in Congress. We are very proud of 

our work record and bipartisanship, reaching across the aisle and 

getting things done. So I am with Mr. Oberstar on this one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thanks very much. And I appreciate the two of 

you and the work that you do and the testimony that you presented. 

So the one-third, two-third there is no disagreement on that, but 

there is some disagreement on travel? I am trying to figure out 

what we are talking about here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I simply continued the practice of the Republican 

majority in previous years which, there are certain limitations on 

travel by minority, and I kept that practice in place. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Did you talk about that? Did you two work on 

that? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Mica has a travel request. He comes on behalf of the ranking members. We also had a majority member who 

was not a subcommittee Chair, make a request for congressional 

delegation travel authority, and I denied it because only subcommittee chairs and ranking members have congressional travel 

delegations, official delegation travel with the committee. So that 

has been our practice. When minority members have requested— 

minority ranking members have requested travel authority on specific committee business, Mr. Mica and I have had discussion; we 

have worked it out. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. We are working on it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. We are working on it. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
94 

Let me ask this: Because of the economic uncertainty we are in 

right now and because all the requests of all the committees, if we 

were to grant them all, it would be in excess of what the Appropriations Committee is going to allow us to have. So either we exercise our discretion here and try and figure out where we have to 

give haircuts, or we just leave it up to Appropriations. And we 

think we have the responsibility to do that, so we are going to exercise our best judgment. 

However, in consideration of that and while we make decisions 

with respect to the 2-year authorization, there has been discussion 

on this committee to have the committees come back to us at the 

end of the fiscal year so we can revisit where you are, how you 

have proceeded, how the plan that you have is working out in 

terms of funding, and see what we might look at for the following 

year—if there were any changes that were appropriate. 

Would the two of you entertain that as something you would not 

be adverse to? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would welcome that opportunity. I think it is a 

great idea. In our committee we are requiring that kind of oversight and accountability for all the Federal agencies under the jurisdiction of our committee in the stimulus initiative. This is our 

waterfall of compliance, of accountability. Every 30 days we are 

going to require the relevant Federal agencies come before our committee collectively and report on the contracts awarded, the personnel at work, the job descriptions, the payroll. 

We are going to do it every 30 days, so if you want to have accountability—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Not every 30 days, but—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will be happy to join my colleague in the congressional hip replacement caucus in that endeavor. 

Mr. LUNGREN. We do have—a lot of people don’t realize that 

every committee does submit a report on a monthly basis. But a 

lot of that appears to be boilerplate. I am not criticizing any particular committee, but I think there hasn’t been enough focus on 

that. 

But one of the things—some of us have discussed it might be important to have the committees come back at the end of the year 

so we can revisit what we are talking about here today. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will have a great record for you to show. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MICA. I might say that this year in particular is probably 

going to be one of our busiest because we do our 6-year reauthorization, and we probably—I have already ramped up, I know, with 

one person. We may have to ramp up with additional to get 

through this. 

So we are going to be very busy this year. This is our busiest season in the committee. But looking at it afterwards, I think, just like 

everybody else, we need to be frugal with taxpayer dollars and revisit it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Lofgren? Mr. Capuano? 

Mr. CAPUANO. I just want to echo the chairman’s comments. I 

know how hard they are working and how good the staff is. I am 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
95 

looking forward to the coming year, I know that. I think we are 

going to get a lot of work done. Everybody here is going to be 

happy, and America will be happy when we are done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just one question. And first, thank you, the two 

of you, for the excellent work you have done and are going to do. 

I think we are about to come to a conclusion on the Recovery Act, 

and certainly there will be infrastructure funds in that, some of it 

transportation. We can argue about whether it is enough or not. 

But I am wondering in your oversight plan whether you are going 

to take a look at how that funding stream is being put out the door 

and that sort of thing. Is that in your work plan? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is exactly what I said a moment ago. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is what you meant on that? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. We have put the State DOTs, the municipal 

transit agencies, the metropolitan planning organizations on notice 

to expect oversight hearings from us, and for them to prepare reports, and specify exactly what we want in that report. 

And as I said, we had hearings last year, and another one in October, had another in January and brought in the State DOTs. And 

they all understand, and the transport agencies and the airport authorities all understand that they are accountable. Half of that $30 billion has to be out the door in 90 days, under 

contract or obligated, or they lose the money and it goes to other 

States that can use it; and we are going to rigorously oversee this. 

It is not difficult. With flash drives and accountability programs in 

most of the States—not all of them—we will be able to have almost 

a day-to-day, certainly week-to-week, accounting of what the States 

are doing. 

This is Illinois DOT. They have a planning cycle that is on their 

flash drive, and they will have bid lettings every 2 weeks from 10 

days after signing of the bill into law, from the time the Office of 

Management and Budget allocates money to the Federal Highway 

Administration, and within that 7 days. 

Within 10 days the State DOTs will be notified by Federal Highway Administration of their proportional allocation under the program, under existing SAFETEA law, and then they will begin the 

process of bid lettings. We are going to be following those and have 

full committee oversight reports on all of the agencies—the Corps 

of Engineers, the FAA, the Coast Guard; they didn’t leave any 

money in the St. Lawrence Seaway. Federal public buildings, GSA 

is going to report to us. 

It is going to take a lot of work. 

Mr. MICA. Let me just add, Mr. Oberstar and I, we have been 

working on stimulus since last fall, I think it was. In our discussions, too, we are very committed to this not being a TARP, one 

where you wake up and say, Where the hell did the money go, and 

nobody has an answer. 

So we are both committed to very rigorous oversight, and that 

will take some personnel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, that sounds terrific. And I am assuming 

that the oversight results will be put on your Web sites so all 

Americans can see where we are. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, yes. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
96 

Ms. LOFGREN. And one of the things—as you are aware, many of 

the cities and counties are very concerned that States might have 

a small carrying fee. And it seems to me that your oversight is one 

of the guarantees that we have, that that concern is not realized 

and that the money actually does flow to the projects as we have 

intended. 

So I do thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will read you some language here: 

‘‘The following powers and duties: A division of progress investigation to ensure the honest execution of the work program, requiring uniform, periodic reports of progress, appropriate measures 

to eliminate delay, recommend termination of projects where they 

are not providing the jobs warranting their continuance.’’ 

That is from Franklin Roosevelt’s order in 1935 implementing 

the Works Progress Administration. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And that will be your guide? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is not new, but we are updating it. 

And Mr. Mica and I are completely in accord that we are for infrastructure as stimulus, but we are also for accountability, measuring progress, ensuring that the jobs are done. 

And I have told these DOTs—and Mr. Mica was with me on 

this—this is dress rehearsal for the next authorization. If you don’t 

do it right now, if you don’t get this program right, then how can 

we trust you to get it right under the 6-year program? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis, questions? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. 

Thank you, Mr. Mica. Thank you for being here. 

Good afternoon. 

Mr. TOWNS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa, thank you for 

appearing before us today and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I am pleased to testify with 

the committee’s ranking member, Darrell Issa. As the new Chair 

of the committee, I have worked closely with Mr. Issa in developing 

this budget, and I intend to continue the committee’s tradition of 

allocating one-third of the committee’s budget to the minority. 

I know Mr. Issa feels as strongly as I do about the importance 

of the committee’s oversight agenda, and he will discuss his specific 

budget concerns separately. However, the ranking member, and I 

intend to work in a bipartisan fashion on a number of important 

oversight and legislative issues, such as the economic recovery legislation now under consideration by Congress and the Troubled 

Asset Relief Plan. 

These two programs alone will cost the American taxpayers over 

$1.5 trillion. An article in Monday’s Washington Post discussed the 

potential for billions of dollars of waste in the implementation of 

the recovery legislation. In view of the inadequate Federal procureVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Nov 24, 2009 Jkt 053140 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\VAN\51249.XXX 51249

erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
97 

ment staff available at most agencies, the committee will play a 

critical role in helping to limit the mistakes that were made during 

the rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina, when only about 30 

percent of the contracts met the requirements for full and open 

competition, and in Iraq where frequent overcharges to the Federal 

Government were commonplace. 

Last week, Elizabeth Warren, head of the congressional oversight 

panel, testified that the lack of transparency in the Treasury Department led it to overpay $78 billion—that is ‘‘B’’ as in boy—for 

the purchase of banking assets. 

The committee staff has already begun to work with the special 

TARP inspector general to develop an effective partnership to increase transparency and accountability in this important program. 

The current economic crisis, the fragmented financial regulatory 

system and inadequate Federal acquisition staff make the work of 

our committee more important than it has perhaps ever been. 

We have an aggressive oversight agenda. However, we won’t be 

able to do what the Congress and the public expects from us without the adequate funding that is necessary. To meet our oversight 

and legislative demands, the committee is requesting a 10.9 percent increase over last Congress. 

I understand that House Administration has a difficult task of 

restoring the committee budget while balancing the number of competing priorities. If budgets were not so tight, we would be asking 

for more money in view of the committee’s agenda. 

As you consider our funding requests, I would ask you to consider three points: 

First, the savings that we anticipate in identifying waste, fraud 

and abuse will more than pay for itself; 

Second, the manpower we need to accomplish this savings is 

labor intensive and requires a significant investment in high-quality staff; and 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is incurring costs associated with the transition between Chairs that we 

also have to consider. 

And thank you for this opportunity to testify before the committee, and I look forward to working with you in the 111th Congress as we go out and identify waste, fraud and abuse. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Towns follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
98 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 51249A.049
99 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 51249A.050
100 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 51249A.051
101 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 51249A.052
102 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 51249A.053
103 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 51249A.054
104 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Issa. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL E. ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lungren. 

I join with the chairman in this request. The request is intended 

to be at a rate of inflation set by this committee and the Appropriations Committee. We felt, in light of the huge budget deficits, we 

had very little choice but to live within our means and find ways 

to work better. 

Certainly one of the efficiencies that we hoped would allow us to 

live within our means is Chairman Towns and myself leveraging 

our staff to work together. Rather than doing two things, we are 

going to be often working together, sharing information. We believe 

this will give us the ability to operate more efficiently. That spirit 

of bipartisanism started today, when we had our organizational 

meeting and moved a number of important pieces of legislation out 

of our committee expeditiously and with—in every single case, although with amendments, unanimously. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, as you know, we are the committee of primary oversight. And although the Rules of the House 

now have added additional requirements for every committee, we 

are the committee that has no conflict of interest. We are not the 

primary legislative committee for almost any of the things that we 

do oversight on; particularly, we are not the legislative committee 

for TARP, for the stimulus, for appropriations in general; and yet 

our oversight is the most independent. We are the committee that 

can transcend jurisdictional lines that often cause one committee to 

demand a sequential referral, even if they only have a small 

amount, or to be offended when they don’t get a piece of it or, often, 

hold two hearings. We believe we are the most efficient place to 

look over these funds. 

To that extent, Mr. Chairman, I have sent you a letter which I 

hope you have had an opportunity to review. Recognizing that additional funds are not available, our letter does ask for an authorization of 30 additional positions. We recognize that without additional funds we may not be able to fill all those positions; but given 

the authorization, the ability to look over the $700 billion worth of 

TARP funding, the stimulus package, TARP II, and moneys beyond, we may be able to creatively find people who, in fact, can 

work on a temporary basis for less money. 

So over the next 2 years, we would hope to recruit on a bipartisan basis to fill those slots with as many people as we can find 

who share with the chairman and myself the vision that government only does well when government looks after and oversees, 

and that the private sector does not improve based on hearings 

alone. They improve on real investigations, something that our 

committee is uniquely capable to do. 

So I would ask respectfully that you consider the chairman’s 

mark for the funding, which is limited to the rate of inflation—or 

at least our perception, and it may be increased or decreased based 

on yours—but that you grant us those supplemental slots so we can 

work together to find people within our means that would allow us 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
105 

to do more of the work necessitated by this very difficult series of 

expenditures that Congress has felt necessary to make. 

With that, we welcome your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
106 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 51249A.055
107 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 51249A.056
108 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the two of you for your testimony. And I would like to 

pick up on something that you mentioned, Mr. Issa, and that is 

that under the new House rules that we have adopted, every committee is supposed to engage in vigorous and continual oversight. 

That is essentially a pledge that is being made under the rules. 

In fact, this committee, since we have responsibility over all the 

committees in terms of budget, probably need to reflect on that. So 

I guess the question would be, as we are attempting to try and perform oversight, and we are also facing a tough economic circumstance right now, what do we say to the public with respect to 

your committee in doing oversight versus the other committees? 

Isn’t it an example of committees getting in the way of one another? Or is it a way of letting the authorizing committees off the 

hook for their oversight? 

How do you view it as a complimentary—I guess that is the word 

I would use—complimentary effort by your committee vis-a-vis the 

regular authorizing committees? 

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Well, first of all, I think there is a lot of 

waste, there is a lot of fraud and a lot of abuse. I think it is enough 

for everybody to go look. And we don’t have a problem with that. 

However, it is our obligation and the responsibility of our committee because that is our function; and of course, we plan to carry 

it out, and we will be assisting others because of the fact that that 

is our role. And, of course, our ability to be able to subpoena, to 

pull people in, I think that also will help us to be able to facilitate 

these things. 

But the point is that waste, I think, fraud and abuse is something that is going on; and a lot of it is because of the way certain 

agencies are structured. They have the inspector general in the 

agency, and the way that the inspector general has to report to the 

director or the Secretary; and of course, if the inspector general is 

looking at something that the director or the Secretary does not 

want the person to look at, they can cut the budget, terminate him, 

do all kinds of things. 

So our committee would be able to sort of go in and look at this 

and be able to pick it up. 

So one thing we hope to do is to be able to make IGs independent. I think that is important, and that is something that we 

can push from our committee; and also the possibility of legislation, 

as well. 

Mr. ISSA. Ranking Member Lungren, basically we are a committee that spends about 10 percent of its resources, majority and 

minority, on administrative personnel. About 10 percent on legislation that falls within our purview, primarily postal, and about 80 

percent—50 percent directly on investigators. 

So I think the answer to your question is, we hire primarily attorneys to do investigations, and those investigations are not just 

used by our committee. They are referred to every committee of the 

Congress because our research becomes the source material often 

for their legislation. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
109 

And as the chairman said, the Bush administration, for example, 

left 13,000 reports of waste, fraud and abuse unanswered when 

they left office. There is more than enough for all of the committees 

in Congress to dig into. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me just ask this question, because I could get 

asked this by my constituents, and it was kind of a red flag out 

there. 

They say, what are you guys doing bringing baseball players up 

and asking them about using steroids? And then they say, now I 

see Congress wants to get in the business of deciding whether or 

not the NCAA ought to have a playoff. And what I am saying is, 

those big headlines came out of your committee with respect to 

baseball. How do I share with them, that we are not—not that I 

think steroids are good in baseball. Believe me, I was the first 

Member of Congress ever to introduce legislation, making steroids 

on the controlled substance list. 

But what do I say to my constituents that then say, well, that 

is the committee that did that, and you gave them a raise, and so 

forth? How do I tell them your focus is really going to be on oversight? 

Mr. TOWNS. Yeah. Actually, we were going to be looking at 

TARP. We are concerned about that. I really don’t think that baseball players should use steroids, but that is not something that I 

would give priority to. I think there are so many other problems 

out there that need to be addressed, and I think that we need to 

address them. 

When we look at the fact that people are unemployed because of 

waste, fraud and abuse, I think that we need to go after that first. 

And then if we have any time after we get rid of all waste, fraud 

and abuse, then we would go look at steroids and go look at—but 

the point is, I don’t see that as a priority for this committee at this 

particular time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. See, I think if the public just thinks you are doing 

oversight and tough oversight, you will have no problem with the 

support of the public, and I won’t be getting questions from my constituents as to why you are doing what you are doing; and I just 

wanted to hear that. 

And just one last thing—— 

Mr. ISSA. By the way, that has been referred to the Energy and 

Commerce Committee. We no longer claim jurisdiction on baseball 

and steroids. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I won’t get into that. 

Mr. TOWNS. We need money to help us with the transition. 

Mr. LUNGREN. There has been discussion on this committee 

about the fact that we are, in a sense, making these decisions for 

a 2-year authorization expenditure for—at a time when we have 

tough economic circumstances. And we are really not sure of what 

the future holds for us in the next couple of years. 

So our thought—at least we have been discussing this on the 

committee today—is that we would ask the committees to come 

back to us at the end of the fiscal year and we would review how 

you spent your money, what your priorities are, have circumstances 

changed and you need different priorities and some flexibility. 

Would you be adverse to that? 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
110 

Mr. TOWNS. No. I would be glad to do it. 

Mr. ISSA. We would be glad to come back and give you a count 

of the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars we can show our 

money leveraged in savings to the government. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren, Mrs. Davis, any questions? 

Thank you both of you for coming. Appreciate your time. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. The Committee on Education 

and Labor, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon. We appreciate your time coming here and testifying in front of us, and 

we are looking forward to your presentation. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My senior 

Republican member, Mr. McKeon, said our goal is to get you back 

on schedule. We will see what we can do. 

The CHAIRMAN. That will go a long way in our decision-making. 

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

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear 

before the committee and to present our budget requirements to 

this committee for funding. 

The budget request that we submit today represents a 9.7 percent increase over the committee’s allocation of the 110th Congress. 

This increase is reflective of the committee’s actual spending practices, based upon spending over the last 2 years, and near utilization of the full number of staff slots in the 110th Congress. Excluding the cost of living increase, this amount represents a 1.1 percent 

increase over the committee’s allocation in the previous Congress. 

The workload of the 111th Congress will surpass that of the very 

productive 2 years this committee had when we doubled the number of hearings, held 19 markups and saw 54 pieces of committeereferred legislation become law. 

The committee has again planned a vigorous legislative and oversight schedule in this Congress, including the reauthorization of No 

Child Left Behind, the National and Community Service Act, child 

nutrition programs, and the Workforce Investment Act. 

The committee also plans to play a major role in the formation 

of health care reform plans of President Obama’s administration, 

and work to better ensure the retirement security of America’s 

workers. 

This budget reflects that workload of this committee, and I believe that we can carry it out. As I pointed out, the largest increase 

in the budget request we submit today is the cost of living adjustment of 4.78, calculated by the Office of Personnel Management, 

for the personnel expenses in the first and second sessions of the 

111th Congress. 

And now I would like to turn it over to Mr. McKeon. 

[The information follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
111 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 51249A.057
112 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 51249A.058
113 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 51249A.059
114 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 51249A.060
115 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 51249A.061
116 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 51249A.062
117 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 51249A.063
118 

The CHAIRMAN. Ditto. Ditto. 

Mr. MCKEON. Look at the Californians. We can take over this 

place. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am all by myself. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on House 

Administration. 

I appreciate that Chairman Miller has followed the past practice 

of the committee in the budget development process and has provided me total autonomy over how my share of the budget is used. 

I am also pleased that our proposed budget meets the goal of providing one-third of the funding and staffing to the minority. 

I am also pleased that Chairman Miller has maintained our past 

practice of sharing our information technology staff and additional 

support staff. This will continue to ensure that both majority and 

minority stay current with advances in technology. 

Our committee anticipates an extremely active agenda in the 

111th Congress. A funding increase will enable us to carry out the 

necessary functions of a successful committee, which in turn will 

allow us to fulfill our responsibility to this Congress and the people 

of the United States. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nice to have both of 

you here. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And it is nice to be able to find agreement on another subject with you, George—that you think Buck is a good guy. 

That is great. 

Let me just ask this: We basically have been informed that the 

Appropriations Committee is not going to grant—if we were to 

grant every request that is made here, in total, that would be in 

excess of what the appropriating committee is going to give us. So 

we either have to say we are not going to exercise any judgment 

whatsoever and they can make it, or we can do it as the authorizing committee. I think we ought to do that. 

In that regard, we have to make some tough decisions. And my 

question is, given the fiscal approach that you used, trying to keep 

costs down and so forth, if we had to give a haircut to your committee, along with some other committees, in terms of the request, 

is there a prioritization that you have established that you would 

make a judgment with respect to that? 

Would it be across the board? Can you give me some idea on 

that? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know that I can intelligently answer that 

question today. But, obviously, if that is the situation we find ourselves in and we recognize this is the first step in the process, and 

then, you are going to receive all the testimony you have received, 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
119 

and you will have to sit down and make some tough decisions 

about it. 

And I know there are committees that have asked for expansion 

and changes that are far beyond what we are talking about. We 

will just have to see how we live in that universe. 

But I think Buck and I both would be prepared to do our share 

if that is necessary. We have tried to run a pretty tight ship. I 

think we had the lowest requests coming in the last two Congresses and we have been able to meet our workload. 

We, obviously, like I think most of the committees, expect a 

heightened workload with the new administration, with the kinds 

of programs that are being put before the Congress. We would certainly take a look at that, but I don’t know how I would prioritize 

that. 

I would certainly want to talk to the staff before doing it. But 

either way, we would figure out how we would live with it. 

Mr. MCKEON. One thing that I have found is, every committee 

operates differently. We have all served on different committees. 

And one thing I would like to point out is, our committee is really 

like two committees. We have all education law; we have all labor 

law. So you really need staff that are skilled in both areas. 

So if you could just keep that in mind as you go through the 

process, I think it would be helpful to us. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is an interesting point you made, Mr. Chairman. You were among the lowest. I reviewed this in the last three 

Congresses. Your committee is actually third lowest cumulative of 

all the committee requests that we have had, that were actually 

granted. So you have been in that ballpark; there is no doubt about 

it. 

Mr. MILLER. Boehner was very cheap when I was in the minority. To step up, I would have had to take a big step. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, actually, I go back to some of the years— 

if I just include his years along with that, you have actually 

brought it down a little bit. It is hard to believe. 

Mr. MILLER. I am a fiscally responsible guy. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I know. I have known you for a long time, George. 

I am not sure I would always put that there. I appreciate that. I 

learn something new about people every day. 

There has been some discussion on this committee about asking 

committees to come back to see us at the end of the fiscal year because we are making the authorization for 2 years—we are in 

tough budget times now; we may be—what the scenario is now is 

not going to be what it is a year from now—and that we would 

have a chance to take a look. You would have a chance to say, here 

is how we followed through, based on the request that we have 

made; here are some different circumstances that have arisen. 

Would you be adverse to coming back before the committee at 

the end of the year? 

Mr. MILLER. No. No. I mean, I am trying to think quickly what 

that would mean. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I guess, years ago you got a 1-year authorization. 

Mr. MILLER. I think we did. I think you are right. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now it is 2 years. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
120 

Mr. MILLER. This is a better process. But these are unusual 

times. We would have to keep that in mind, I think, as we go 

through the year. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is what I mean. 

The CHAIRMAN. It also may be a good opportunity to give you 

some more money that we couldn’t give you in the first year in the 

second year. 

Mr. MILLER. I have thought of that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is the ying and the yang here. Very good. 

And you are satisfied in terms of—Mr. McKeon, in terms of the 

budget allocation, one-third/two-thirds, and the relationship you 

have with the chairman on those kinds of issues? 

Mr. MCKEON. Yes. I wish I could get him to come my way on 

some other issues. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I know that. I thought his statement was very understated when he said, while Congressman McKeon and I sometimes disagree on legislative matters. 

Mr. MILLER. We start every legislative journey holding hands on 

the road to bipartisanship. We make periodic judgments. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is like saying that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is 

over 6-feet tall. It is true, but it doesn’t give you quite the full picture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate the modest request, given the enormous efforts that face the committee. And I especially—I assume 

from your testimony that the No Child Left Behind legislation is 

going to be revisited. That is a huge amount of work. 

So I just want to commend you both for facing up to those responsibilities with such a prudent budget request. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. That is why I think Mr. Brady’s suggestion of seeing you at the end of the year might make some sense. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I was just going to echo Ms. Lofgren’s 

concern about No Child Left Behind, and make sure that the resources are there to really do the work that is required, because 

we expect great things from you. 

Mr. MILLER. We would like to get it done in the first year. I have 

not yet had a casual conversation with the new Secretary, but we 

have both made reservations with one another to talk about this 

as soon as we get through this immediate crisis. Hopefully that will 

be the schedule. So we will be done in this first session of Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

Ranking Member McKeon, thank you. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McHugh. 

We appreciate you being here today. 

We do have a vote on. We just hope that maybe we can get 

through your testimony and get through your presentation in time 

to make this vote. We just got a call for a vote, so I think we can 

probably get this done. 

I appreciate it. Looking forward to your testimony. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
121 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. SKELTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren. We appreciate being allowed to testify today. As you know, 

my partner and my friend, John McHugh, is with us, the ranking 

gentleman. We have a funding resolution and supporting material 

before you. So let me make some brief comments, if I may. In simple terms, we request a budget of $18 million, what is 

needed to ensure the Armed Services Committee can fulfill its substantial oversight responsibilities while retaining a highly technical 

professional staff. We have a very unique committee, and our 

charge is very unique. We have the responsibility to oversee a military actively engaged in two wars. Yearly, we authorize over 50 

percent—I will say it again—over 50 percent of the discretionary 

portion of the entire Federal budget. And overseeing the new administration change and strategy for two wars, and helping to decide the proper scope and the roles and budget will call for substantial exchanges. 

We have a huge mandate. And because 60 of our colleagues, including two members of this committee, have chosen to serve with 

us, making the Armed Services Committee one of the largest committees in the House, at the same time its relative level of resources both in terms of staff positions and funding allocations does 

not fully reflect our responsibilities. 

Now Mr. Chairman, it was before your time, but under Chairman Les Aspin, the Armed Services Committee was known for its 

oversight and its analytical work; and I remember very well being 

down in front during those days. 

But it was the run-up to the Gulf War. The committee at that 

time had 82 staff members, and today our staff is 69. 

And we thank the committee for the help that you gave us last 

year, and we are appreciative of this. And yet there are only three 

other committees that have smaller ratios of staff-to-committee 

members than we. And I would certainly hope that you could be 

of help to us. 

In the last Congress we had 177 hearings. We also passed an 

outstanding National Defense Authorization Act, which is a fourdecades-long tradition of getting an authorization bill enacted into 

law. 

We are bipartisan; every staff member works for everyone. However, we do have the minority controlling 14 of those slots. And we 

frankly need more money and more attention. We are asking for a total of $18 million, $8.3 million in 2009 and $9.7 million in 2010. And this represents a real increase in where 

we are today; yet if you compare this to other committees and compare that to our responsibilities, we still would rank lower than the 

spending levels of four other committees in the 110th Congress. 

These are challenging budgetary times. We know that. In looking, however, at the funding levels of ourselves and other committees and the ratio of staff to members, it calls for real help, Mr. 

Chairman, and we would appreciate any help that you can give us 

along that line. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Skelton follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
122 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 51249A.064
123 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 51249A.065
124 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 51249A.066
125 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 51249A.067
126 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 51249A.068
127 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 51249A.069
128 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 51249A.070
129 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 51249A.071
130 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 51249A.072
131 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McHugh. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN M. McHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Lungren, and distinguished members. I am going to try to 

be very, very brief because I don’t think I serve our interests by 

making us miss a vote. But if I may, I could submit my formal 

statement for the record in its entirety. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that obviously these 

are difficult times for our country. And as my chairman—and I 

would note, my good friend—Ike Skelton has said, we are somewhat of an understaffed and underresourced committee, given what 

lies before us. 

We have a change in the administration. The American people 

have spoken. But at the same time we will continue to oversee potential change, and in many ways a very appropriate change, in the 

strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan. And as I know all of us agree, 

these are conflicts that are critical to our national security; and we 

are going to have a great deal of discussion in this conference about 

what is appropriate national security policy and what the appropriate funding levels should be. 

Let me state, the committee has, as the chairman said, a very 

unique tradition; and with respect to this consideration before you, 

we have a bipartisan approach and a uniquely unified staff. And 

it is important to note for the record, within this structure the minority does control 14 slots. 

And again, as the chairman said, for the purposes of benefits and 

overhead costs and committee operations, the committee’s minority 

staff is treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the staff. 

And our long-standing tradition also holds that any staff increases 

that, in your wisdom, we are able to secure here will be equally 

shared by the minority. And obviously from my perspective, I think 

that is a very, very good thing. 

This request seeks to ensure the committee has sufficient staff 

resources, ensuring that the lessons learned from the current operations regarding the size and the capabilities of our military are 

not lost, that potential changes to military policy do not adversely 

affect our national security, and that we have done everything in 

our power to ensure—as I know you share an interest, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of your distinguished committee—that 

the men and women in uniform, who serve us so proudly, and their 

families are well served. 

We all recognize these are tough economic times; and we recognize, as well, this committee is going to have to make some very, 

very difficult decisions. But when you consider the amount of 

spending that we are making in the days ahead to try to restart 

our economy and to ensure that the regulators and overseers have 

sufficient budgets and staffs to account for that spending, this committee needs appropriate resourcing as well. 

Let me just, in closing, underscore one of the facts that the chairman made. The Department of Defense is spending close to $650 

billion each and every year, while the American children—adults, 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
132 

young men and women—fight and shed blood for freedom. And in 

that light particularly, I would respectfully suggest that the $9 million we are seeking to oversee that effort is somewhat modest in 

comparison, that some of those other moneys will be spent for 

America. 

We have, I think, an awesome responsibility on this committee— 

again, the chairman said, over 50 percent of the discretionary funding—and I think in that context the request of the committee is 

very, very reasonable and something that I am here today to respectfully say I fully support. 

With that, I would certainly yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. McHugh follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
133 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 51249A.073
134 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 51249A.074
135 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 51249A.075
136 

The CHAIRMAN. Also you need to know that Mr. Spratt was here 

testifying for his Budget Committee and asked probably for the 

least amount of money of anybody in front of us and put a big pitch 

in for the Armed Services Committee. And we took that to heart. 

I serve on Armed Services. It is a pleasure to be there. It is a 

great committee to serve on, great relationship. And I am sure that 

comes from the relationship between the Chair and our ranking 

member. So I thank you for that. 

Mr. Lungren, any questions? 

Mr. LUNGREN. As you suggest, we may not be able to grant all 

the requests that are out there. 

I happen to think national defense is the number one obligation 

of the Federal Government, so I appreciate the work that you do. 

But just for informational purposes, your request is three times the 

average request, percentage-wise, of any committee making requests out here and the third highest. And we have been told by 

the appropriators, we are going to make the ultimate decision how 

much money you get, that if we added up all the requests that we 

have got, it won’t meet their mark that we have got. 

So we have got to do some trimming here. And I will just tell 

you that to know that we have got some tough decisions. 

The last thing I will say is this: We have been discussing here 

whether or not it would be good to have the committees come back 

to talk to us after the fiscal year. In other words, even though this 

is a 2-year authorization, come back after the first year so we can 

look at where you are, see how that stacks up with the requests 

that you have made, see if there are changed circumstances; on the 

one hand, make sure that what we thought is the case is the case, 

and if there are different factors, maybe we authorize something 

that might be in addition to what we can authorize right now. 

Would you have any problem with that, that is, coming back at 

the end of the year? 

Mr. SKELTON. I don’t think we would. Everybody that comes before you, Mr. Lungren, is going to say, We are different, we are 

special. 

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody has said that so far today. 

Mr. SKELTON. I know. And maybe I sound like a broken record 

on that. But when I look at the job that we have to do, we are supposed to have four hearings a year on waste, fraud and abuse. We 

are supposed to have first-class oversight. 

The Defense Department, as the chairman and Mrs. Davis will 

tell you, is a humongous department and it needs as much scrutiny 

from professionals. 

We really have good people; we really do. We are wearing some 

of them out as the chairman and Mrs. Davis will tell you. We 

would like to add six this year, an additional six next year. To keep 

good people, you have to pay them. I don’t want to see us raided 

of these professionals that we have; and you just have to pay them 

and treat them well. 

And that is where we are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Mr. MCHUGH. If I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
137 

Mr. MCHUGH. I fully agree with what the chairman said. We 

have certain obligations that professional staff recognize are critical to their future; and clearly, any uncertainty breeds the opportunity for them to search out new horizons. Having said that, I 

think both the chairman and I could say, we are so strongly committed and believe in this request that any future review, we think, 

could withstand your scrutiny. That is your jurisdiction. 

So while I firmly believe that this request merits a 2-year consideration, with respect to whatever determinations you make, I am 

sure we would meet that bar. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just very quickly—and I don’t necessarily expect 

to you have the answers to this question, but I do want to raise 

it so that it can be further explored by you. 

There are some committees, including yours, that have information probably more sensitive than certain other committees. 

Mr. SKELTON. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And one of the concerns that I have had is that 

we have adequate cyber security efforts in place for the committee 

offices here in Washington, but also to make sure that—again, it 

is one of the committees where members travel a lot, and appropriately so, given the nature of the assignment. But members do 

take mobile devices and many of them do not realize that there is 

hacking going on and that they are exposing not only themselves, 

but potentially the committee and their offices to disruption and 

spying. 

So I am just hoping that we can—looking at your budget that 

you can put some attention to that. Certainly, House Administration has resources. But a lot of Members just have no idea what 

their—— 

Mr. SKELTON. We have and we will. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The only other thing I would say, and I have said 

the same thing to Foreign Affairs is that before members go on a 

CODEL, I think it would be important for the committee to have 

a little heart-to-heart with each member going through the risky 

behavior that members are completely unaware of in some cases. 

Mr. SKELTON. Yes, we do try to do that. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We do have a vote. One minute. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just really quickly, it is really tough for the staff to be a match for the Pentagon, as you know. I mean, that is tough. 

And so the work that they do is quite extraordinary; and I think 

that—as we look at the next 2 years, I guess I would ask the chairman and ranking member, in what area over the course of that 

year do you think you might have been shorted a little bit, didn’t 

do something that you could have done had you had another resource, another staff member that could have helped? 

Mr. SKELTON. In a word, oversight. We have the new subcommittee, as you know, that has been functioning very, very well. 

But oversight. It is a massive undertaking. Whether it be on personal matters or weapons systems or all of the above. 

I don’t know how John feels, but that would be my thought. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I couldn’t agree more. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
138 

To the chairman’s credit, when he took over and the new majority took over, one of the first things they did, as you know, Mrs. 

Davis, is create the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

They did a great job within the parameters of staffing that was 

available to them. 

But that is going to be more important, not so much as an oversight or potential wrongdoing by the new administration, but rather as a responsible and reflective oversight with respect to the rapidly changing environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I agree. 

And I know I missed that committee meeting because I was here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. Thank you for being here today. 

Recess until the last vote. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Calling the committee on House Administration 

back to order. I would like to welcome our chairman of Veterans 

Affairs, Chairman Filner, and Ranking Member Buyer. And thank 

you for being here and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

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

Lungren, for the opportunity to be here and Ranking Member Mr. 

Buyer joins me in support of today’s request. I will submit by testimony for the record, and just say a few things in addition. 

Our committee is responsible for the second largest Federal agency in the government with over 260,000 people and a budget authority approaching $100 billion; and our request for 7.8 million 

provides us not only the ability to hire a fine professional staff, but 

to pursue an aggressive oversight agenda. 

The 25 million veterans that we are responsible for means that 

a quarter of the Nation’s population, over 70 million, are potentially eligible for VA benefit services because they are veterans, 

family members or survivors. So we need to serve this population. 

Our agenda for the coming year revolves around adequately 

funding the Department, addressing our backlogs in claims and 

benefits, building on mental health and traumatic brain injury 

treatment, rural health care and women’s veteran issues and improving access to the VA. 

Ninety percent of our budget is for staff, as you well know. The 

couple of increases we have asked for revolve around travel because we have a lot of new members on the VA committee, and 

they have already approached us with requests to travel to VA facilities in their area, and for, of course, our oversight around the 

country. 

Our equipment request is in accordance with the end of Life 

Cycle program that is around the Hill. 

We do request in our staff ceiling from 34, and we ask for a raise 

to 36; This would allow both the majority and the minority to hire 

one additional staff person while still maintaining a two-thirds, 

one-third policy. We are a small committee, and we have a big responsibility; and we think we can do this with the staffing that we 

requested and the budget that we requested. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
139 

And I think I speak for Mr. Buyer. All of us on this committee 

have great pride that we can, in fact, serve the great veterans of 

our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
140 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 51249A.076
141 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 51249A.077
142 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Buyer. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE BUYER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member 

Lungren. 

I associate myself with the words of Chairman Filner. I support 

this request that treats the minority fairly in all respects and 

maintains the two-thirds/one-third division. 

And the budget was put together in a transparent manner, so I 

want to thank the chairman for that and the cooperation between 

our staff. All pertinent information was shared; it has been an open 

process, and for that, I am deeply appreciative. 

The only thing I would like for the committee to understand a 

bit of the history of VA, where we are and the purpose of this request. 

As I sat here, I heard you ask some questions about where could 

you cut, if you could cut, where would you do it. Please understand 

that when Chris Smith was chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, he had gotten himself crosswise with then Republican leadership; and they began to cut his budgets to try to get him to cooperate, and it left our IT systems in disarray. When I became 

chairman of the committee, I then had to come to House Administration and ask for a very large increase, and we had to modernize 

our Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s budgets. 

Chairman Filner, over the last 2 years, carried through with that 

plan, but our servers now need to be funded. And so we are in this 

replacement plan for our IT architecture within the committee, and 

it is really important. I just wanted you to know that. 

I will now echo the chairman’s comments. At Veterans’ Affairs, 

we have an excellent staff that works in a bipartisan manner; and 

we deal with the consequences of war in ensuring that the earned 

benefits are properly delivered and timely. And there is a lot of 

oversight. 

But at the same time, we work very well with the VA and the 

VA has been doing a pretty good job. But, boy, they know how to 

trip and stumble, too. When they do, everybody gets to know about 

it in the country, and they demand immediate response; and the 

chairman and myself, along with that staff, try to be as responsible 

as possible and to go to those sites. 

So the budget that has been submitted I believe is a fair budget 

and allows us to do the job which I believe the country expects us 

to do. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lungren, any questions? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you both of you for your testimony. Just on the record, 

it is your committee in the Congresses in the past that has pointed 

out when administrations have not come up with the proper funding. And you folks were proven right in recent years, as opposed 

to the administration, and you were sort of our guide in the Congress as to what the proper numbers ought to be. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
143 

Is that correct? Am I remembering that history pretty well? 

Mr. BUYER. There has been a long debate over, quote, ‘‘What is 

the proper funding within the VA health administration side of the 

House,’’ and we learned—there is nothing wrong with the budget 

modeling, but what we learned is that the inputs are stale; and 

that has been a bipartisan effort, to make sure the number is correct. 

As a matter of fact, in the last Congress when Democrats then 

took over, my gosh, they even delivered a number that was higher 

than the Independent Budget. So what they sought to do on the 

committee is to put this issue to rest. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What I am just trying to point out is, your committee has done a good job of trying to find out what the facts are 

and trying to get them to those of us in Congress as you do your 

oversight. It is money well spent. 

Your increase request is in line with what you have gotten, averaged over the last three to five Congresses; and I think it is an obvious observation that the amount of work that the VA is going to 

be doing in the coming years is not going to be any less than it has 

been in the last 10 years, particularly as we have more and more 

of our veterans returning from active warfare. So I appreciate the 

work that you are doing. 

One thing I would just say is that we have asked here on the 

committee, others who have appeared before us, whether or not it 

would be a good idea for us to have committees come back to us 

at the end of this year to see how things stacked up with the request that was made and the expenditures that were made, and 

particularly since we are in uncertain economic times right now in 

trying to make budget decisions. 

So even though we would authorize for 2 years, the thought 

would be that we would ask committees to come back to us, report 

to us on what they are doing; and if there is a change of circumstances, have us take a look at it. And I hope that the two of 

you would cooperate with us in that manner. 

Mr. FILNER. Sure, Mr. Lungren. I think it is a great idea. Anything that increases the transparency of the body I think is good 

and that is one that would do that. So we would certainly welcome 

that opportunity. 

Mr. BUYER. One of the reasons I think we would be more than 

eager to do that is with reference to the travel budget. At the end 

of the last Congress, the VA sent us a message and said they were 

no longer going to pay for our travel. I think what we had was an 

administration saying, I don’t want to pay the bill to have you do 

all this oversight on us and then criticize us; and so—I am just 

paraphrasing, but I think that is probably—so they cut the travel 

budgets. 

So we have had to increase the request for travel on our side and 

my sensing is that—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is so your members can go and see—do onsite trips, find out for themselves? 

Mr. BUYER. The on-spot visits. You have to go flip the beds, look 

in the trunks, and go where they don’t want you to go. And that 

is what the staffs do. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
144 

But my sensing here is—and I will meet with the Secretary tomorrow—they are going to keep that. I had this discussion with his 

staff and shared it with the chairman. My sensing is, the Secretary 

will keep that as the norm for this year. 

So, in the budget, we will be paying out of hide for our own oversight. But what I am hopeful for is that the administration—then 

we can negotiate that in our budgets and they can pick that up like 

they do for DOD. So when we do that, I would be more than happy 

to come back and discuss that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren? No questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Buyer. Thank you for 

your time. 

Mr. FILNER. We should come back every quarter maybe because 

it is such a wonderful experience. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t feel like seeing you that often. 

Good afternoon. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good afternoon. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is good to see Homeland Security and we appreciate Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Mark Souder 

being here to testify today. We look forward to your presentation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Lungren, other members. I see my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, and obviously a member of the committee, 

Ms. Lofgren. I am happy to be here. 

Obviously this is not Ranking Member King. He sent his best 

person on the committee in his absence given his schedule. I think 

Mr. King has some other commitments in New York. I think some 

of us are familiar with what he is working on, and so he could not 

be here. But I am happy to be here. 

Ranking Member King and myself really work well on this committee together, Mr. Chair. Over the past two Congresses, we have 

worked in a very bipartisan manner. We have conducted oversight 

on some very difficult issues, and I have held a number of hearings 

affecting nearly every aspect of the Department. 

The biggest government reorganization in decades is no short 

order. Its first transition to a new administration has been one of 

our chief concerns for over a year. I also know our committee’s 

work on both natural and man-made disasters speaks for itself. 

However, we still have a lot of opportunities and responsibilities 

within this mammoth Federal agency. 

From the standpoint of the Chair of the committee, we have had, 

as I indicated, a very bipartisan approach. Our staffs work together 

on all those areas. We have had a record number of hearings, especially oversight. 

Our budget request is in line with what we think we will need 

to continue the responsibilities of the committee this session. We 

feel very comfortable that since this request does not reflect any request for additional staff to perform the duties, it basically recognizes the fact that in order to keep a good staff, we have to pay 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
145 

them; otherwise, we will lose them. So beyond the normal increases 

for supporting competent staff, we don’t anticipate any requests for 

any additional financial support. 

We do a number of field hearings. We travel around the country, 

looking at various aspects of Homeland Security, whether it is border security, cyber security, transit security, port security. This 

mission is not just here in Washington, but it is all over the country and, in some instances, around the world. But we have made 

it. 

There are a number of things we want to look toward next 

year—and this year, really—with the budget. We have an issue 

with TWIC cards, border security efforts, an intelligence fusion center in Denver, new security infrastructure issues at the Port of 

Long Beach, L.A., protection of the subway and commuter rail systems in New York, DC, chemical plants in New Jersey and Houston. 

We have a diverse mission, So in support of that, we make this 

request before this committee to allow us to perform those duties. 

And in the interest of allowing my ranking member, Mr. Souder for 

the benefit of this hearing, I will yield to him at this time. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
146 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 51249A.078
147 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 51249A.079
148 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 51249A.080
149 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 51249A.081
150 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 51249A.082
151 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 51249A.083
152 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 51249A.084
153 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 51249A.085
154 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 51249A.086
155 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 51249A.087
156 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Souder. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman—Chairman 

Brady and Ranking Member Lungren and all the other members 

of the committee. The ranking member, Peter King, had an unavoidable conflict, as you heard, and he asked me to represent the 

committee Republicans. 

I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California on his 

appointment as ranking member of your committee; and as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, he knows a wide 

range of issues. 

The committee addresses an important role. It plays in overseeing the Department of Homeland Security, as does Ms. Lofgren, 

who has worked on the committee from the beginning. The funding 

level requested will allow the committee on Homeland Security to 

continue its important work. The staffing level remains the same 

as the last Congress with 22 positions for the Republican staff. 

Mr. Chairman Thompson has pointed out that the Committee on 

Homeland Security has accomplished much since its establishment 

as a standing committee in 2005. In the 109th Congress, the committee was responsible for new laws of important security, chemical plant, security border infrastructure and FEMA reform. 

In the 110th Congress, the committee played a role in ensuring 

H.R. 1, implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 

Act, was enacted into law. In both Congresses, the committee conducted extensive oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. 

In the past 2 years, we saw Islamic terrorists attempt to kill 

hundreds of innocent British citizens, first in the popular downtown nightlife area and later at an airport. We saw another cell 

plot to behead British soldiers who had returned from Iraq. 

In the United States, we witnessed six Islamic terrorist plots to 

kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and another group to set 

a fire at JFK Airport and the surrounding neighborhoods. 

This past Thanksgiving the world watched in horror as nearly 

200 civilians were killed in a coordinated terrorist attack in 

Mumbai, India. And just this morning, Taliban suicide bombers 

carried out a Mumbai-style attack in Kabul, resulting in at least 

19 killed and 46 wounded. 

These are just the terrorist plots that have been made public. 

The Committee on Homeland Security held its organization 

meeting last week and adopted its rules package and oversight 

plan. The chairman and the ranking member expressed their intent to work in a bipartisan manner. While we have our policy differences from time to time, we will express them in a constructive 

way. 

In the 111th Congress, we need to address the security implications of the President’s plans for Guantanamo Bay, explore the 

findings of the WMD Commission, pass an authorization bill for 

DHS, strengthen border security, and improve intelligence and information sharing. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
157 

We also look forward to working with the new Secretary of 

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to ensure adequate resources and constructive oversight are provided to the Department. 

We ask for the support of the committee on House Administration for this funding resolution to allow our committee to do what 

it can to protect our country from a terrorist attack and be better 

prepared for national disasters. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lungren, any questions? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Souder, for appearing before us and 

representing the committee in the request, which appears to be a 

very reasonable request considering the continuing ambit of issues 

that the committee deals with. 

I also might note this is a relatively new committee, and as a result, it had rather substantial increases in the past several Congresses. And so this is a substantial departure that is a far smaller 

request for an increase than we have seen in the past. And I think 

that is an indication that the committee is up and running, that 

we have sort of hit our stride, and we have done those kinds of organizational things that need to be done. 

Just one question and that is that we have discussed on this 

committee the idea that while we do 2-year authorizations, it would 

be a good idea to have committees come back to us at the end of 

the year, end of the fiscal year, and basically share with us what 

progress has been made, how the money has been spent consistent 

with what the request was made for. In light of the fact that we 

have real questions about the economy right now, and we are trying to make tough decisions as to what budgets ought to be, there 

might be changed circumstances in a year, and it might be of interest to this committee to know what needs the committee has at 

that time. 

So we would hope that the committee would work with us on 

that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. We would not have a problem at all. 

Mr. SOUDER. May I comment? 

Probably as much or more than almost any committee in Congress, the likelihood of something happening in our area of influence would be large that—while we are staffed up more than we 

were, as a senior member at Oversight and Government Reform, 

we have far more staff over there than we have at Homeland Security. 

There have been all kinds of jurisdiction questions, and the 9/11 

Commission wanted this committee to be the point committee; and 

in fact, if there is a terrorist attack on our soil, you are likely to 

see a lot of pressure come towards this committee. So the ability 

to come in and review it at the end of the year would be helpful. 

And I would also like to praise Mr. Thompson’s reasonable request. I have been a committee staff director. I have been a Member of Congress who has made requests for committees. This is a 

very reasonable request; and if at the end of the year or somewhere 

along the line you have to reevaluate, I would hope it would be 

taken into consideration who asked for big increases, who asked for 

smaller increases, and it not be some kind of proportional, across 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
158 

the board, because that is what gets people to lead to inflated requests if that would happen. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that very much. And you bring up a 

point, which is, if I am not mistaken—the last remaining, unresolved recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was that we have 

a single committee with prime jurisdiction over Homeland Security 

matters; and both the Senate and the House have failed on that 

one. 

I would hope that we would move further in that direction, and 

you need to have a budget that is equal to the challenge of the responsibilities that the committee has. 

So I appreciate your presentation and I thank you. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren, any questions? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say I have been happy to serve on 

this committee since it was—before it was a standing committee; 

and it has been really a pleasure to serve with the many talented 

members across the aisle. 

And certainly Mr. Thompson’s leadership has been excellent. As 

Mr. Lungren has noted, this now—I think the budget request is a 

reflection of how the committee has now matured. And I want to 

give credit to the chairman and certainly Mr. King, who couldn’t 

be here today. 

But the members have worked very hard, and I think we are 

going to have a very good year; there is a lot of new energy in the 

committee. Some of the members who wavered certainly added continuity, but because of their other assignments, weren’t always able 

to attend. 

So we are just going to have a great year, I think, in Homeland 

Security, and I look forward to approving this budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. I would just like to say how much I appreciate the 

leadership that Chairman Thompson and Mr. King have provided. 

Keep up the good work. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Souder. Thank you for appearing here today. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chair, Mr. Hall is on the way. Let me just say 

that there is something going on in this room. I wish you could bottle it and take it to the rest of the floor. The collegiality is very 

warming. 

This is really the first time I have ever seen Mr. Buyer and Mr. 

Filner be civil with each other and even agreed. So—something is 

going on here, so my congratulations. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have got to tell you, we were a little disappointed ourselves, but—— 

Mr. GORDON. I don’t want to hold you up. I am sure Mr. Hall 

is going to be in the amen section, and I don’t think he would mind 

my going forward, and then he can join—I hate to speak for him. 

He doesn’t have staff here. But I know you have got things to do 

here. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will let you do your opening statement. Hopefully, he will come in. And then if he comes in during, we will let 

him speak too. Is that okay? 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
159 

Go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. GORDON. Let me just get down to business. 

We are asking for a 10 percent increase. And I know you have 

got to think, ‘‘Well, these are tough times; why are you doing that?’’ 

So I think we need to give you an explanation. 

You have some charts there before you that show the amount of, 

really, additional work that our committee has done. We have doubled the number of hearings in the last Congress from the previous 

Congress, and all the collateral work that goes with that also increased. 

We have several authorizations that are coming up this year; for 

that reason, we were granted three additional staff members to try 

to take care of this. So those were expensive. 

And we are in a somewhat unique situation in that most of our 

professional staff have PhDs. They all have advanced degrees; most 

of them have PhDs in engineering or the sciences or those hardto-get areas. We have continuing battles to stop the poaching, so 

we really have to pay our folks comparably to keep them there. So 

payroll is a big part of our budget. 

As you know, the administration has put a priority on science for 

this coming year, as President Obama has said on a number of occasions; and my friends here on this side know that when Speaker 

Pelosi speaks to our caucus about innovation and about the future, 

she says there are four things we have to do. She started off with 

three, now it is four: science, science, science, science. 

So we are being asked to do a lot of things in that regard. Travel 

goes up for everybody, and we know that is going up. But we are 

again a little bit unique in the sense that we have several new subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, as well as several new 

members. So we are expecting there is going to be more travel than 

usual as they better understand their jobs. 

Then we get to the other major category. That is equipment. We 

are on a somewhat regular cycle and this coming cycle for this coming year and in 2010, we are replacing all of our desktop computers, which will be expensive. 

There is something called a Lektriever. If you don’t know what 

that is, I don’t really either, but I am told we have one. It is way 

downstairs. It is over 20 years old, they think—nobody has been 

around long enough to know how old it is—and that needs to be 

replaced. We are going to try to make it with bubble gum and all 

that until at least 2010. 

So, again. I think we are in somewhat of a unique situation. And 

I will either conclude there, or you will be welcomed to ask questions, or we can wait for Mr. Hall or whatever you would like to 

do. 

I understand Mr. Hall is stuck in an elevator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are the elevators stuck again? 

Mr. GORDON. Let me also say that every piece—we got out, I 

guess, almost 70 pieces of legislation in either bills or resolutions 

last year. All were vastly bipartisan. There wasn’t anything that 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
160 

wasn’t bipartisan coming out of the committee; and I think that is 

a tribute to having a good partner here. 

[The statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
161 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 51249A.088
162 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 51249A.089
163 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 51249A.090
164 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 51249A.091
165 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ranking member, Mr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH M. HALL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. HALL. Yes. I thank you. I will read this to you guys—it’s my 

first time reading it. I won’t make any mistakes. 

As you know the House Science and Technology Committee has 

a long history of bipartisanship. Chairman Gordon and I worked together the last Congress to pass many good pieces of legislation 

and advance important programs and initiatives for the American 

people, including the America COMPETES bill and the NASA Reauthorization Act. 

Bart may want to put another one or two in there. 

I look forward to working with him in this Congress to promote 

more initiative for our energy independence, our space program 

and our international competitiveness. And the rest of it goes about 

the division of—split between majority and minority; but he has always been very fair with us, and I expect the same thing this time. 

I put this in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
166 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 51249A.092
167 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 51249A.093
168 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gordon, does your budget allow you to grant 

each minority request for equipment and travel? 

Mr. GORDON. I am sorry, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. Has your budget allowed you to grant each minority request for travel and equipment? 

Mr. GORDON. I can’t say ‘‘no’’ to Ralph. There hasn’t been a request for travel or equipment for a hearing or anything that Mr. 

Hall has asked for that they haven’t received. Yes, they have gotten all of their equipment. 

Mr. HALL. I send these two ladies to see him when I really want 

something. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to hear that. You have to push your 

button on the microphone. I didn’t care about the statements so 

much, but—that is okay. You don’t have to repeat that. 

Mr. HALL. I will say he has been very cooperative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Lungren, questions? 

Mr. LUNGREN. All right. I am waiting to hear these answers, 

Ralph. Going over the numbers, the request you have is exactly 

twice as much as the requested increase over the past five Congresses. Can you tell us why that—— 

Mr. GORDON. I think there are a couple of reasons. 

Let’s see. Well, there are no 1994 folks here, are there? In 1994, 

or the beginning of 1995, we had a series of chairmen, Mr. Sensenbrenner being the last, that felt that their job was to do as little 

as possible in terms of the committee work. And I say that because 

that is what they were about less government. 

So the Science Committee had its budget really slashed during 

that period of time, and it hasn’t really started to come up yet. So, 

one, we start from a low benchmark. 

The other thing, as I said, our work vastly increased last year. 

We had double the amount of hearings. Both the Speaker and the 

President have made science and technology a real emphasis, so we 

are expecting even more coming this year. 

And, again, I think the unique thing is that most of our budget 

goes to staff, and I don’t think there is any question we have more 

PhDs. per capita than any other staff. It doesn’t mean we are any 

better, just that we have a niche of information; that is what it 

takes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not a scientist, but I was an English major 

in college. So I appreciate your saying—using the word ‘‘unique’’ 

properly. You said there was a unique—because we have heard 

about ‘‘very unique’’ and ‘‘kind of unique’’ and ‘‘somewhat unique’’; 

and something is unique or not. So I appreciate you using the 

King’s English here correctly. 

Let me just ask you this, and this is kind of a general question, 

but I don’t get a chance to ask the two of you this very often. I 

have spread my service over 30 years here in this Congress and the 

same question remains. Why aren’t we attracting more of our 

young people to science? Why aren’t we doing a better job generally, but particularly with minority kids? Why is our system failing? 

Kids are so attracted to new technology in terms of video 

games—I mean, if you want to know the newest technology, make 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
169 

sure you talk to a kid. I mean, they know how to do it better than 

we do. So they seem to have an affinity for that, but they don’t 

have an affinity for science. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. GORDON. You hit a button here. So let me try not to take 

too much time. 

To follow up on—continuing on your question, when you look at 

the scores of American students, particularly in middle school and 

high school, on international science and math tests, the last thing 

I saw, I think we were 31st out of 33 of industrialized countries 

in math and 32 out of 33 in the sciences. 

So we—Sherry Boehlert, Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman— 

asked the National Academies to do a report on that, what is going 

on here. As they looked into it, they determined we are not less 

smart than the rest of them. 

Let me give you an interesting thing here: 53 percent of our middle school and high school math teachers have neither certification 

to teach math nor a degree; 93 percent of the physical science 

teachers have neither certification nor a degree in that subject. So 

it is hard—no matter how good a teacher you are, if you don’t fully 

understand your core subject, it is both hard to teach and it is hard 

to get your students excited. 

Mr. Hall mentioned the COMPETES bill last year, and one of the 

things that we did—and I assume most of you voted for it—we 

passed legislation—for a variety of things. One, it is going to provide stipends for those good teachers that are there now that don’t 

have a certification to go back to school, get their certification—AP, 

National Board, whatever it might be. 

And all of this is through the National Science Foundation, using 

existing programs that are just being scaled out, ones that we 

know work. There is also another program to bring in professionals 

that are engineers, or whatever it might be, now, that want to go 

into teaching, to give them that teaching background so they can 

take the background of the substance and end up teaching. 

Then there is also going to be a scholarship program for those 

students that will go into math or science—and education—and 

agree to teach for 5 years. So we are trying to reload in that way. 

And you hit a very good point. Women and minorities are the 

most underrepresented—it is scary. And we have also passed legislation to try to increase that. 

I would love to talk about this more, but one last thing. Last 

year, the Chinese in China, they graduated more English-speaking 

engineers in China from their universities than we did here in this 

country. That is English-speaking. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I obviously touched a button. I appreciate that. 

Let me just throw out one little suggestion. When I visited Hong 

Kong a couple of years ago with Buck McKeon and others, I found 

out that in Hong Kong they have outstanding science, math records 

for their kids. And one of the things they do is, they require their 

teachers in middle school and high school to have a degree in math 

or science. 

But the interesting thing is, they have far more that graduate in 

that than they can put in their schools; and they are all required 

to learn English as a part of their system. Wouldn’t it be a great 

exchange program to bring some of those people who are EnglishVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Nov 24, 2009 Jkt 053140 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\VAN\51249.XXX 51249

erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
170 

speaking—who know math, know science, have been taught how to 

teach kids that—over here to the United States? Not in competition 

with the programs you are talking about, but maybe as a little jolt 

here and there? 

I just throw it out for your—— 

Mr. GORDON. I think that is something we should talk to the 

State Department about. That is a good recommendation. Thank 

you. 

Mr. HALL. I don’t know the real reason, but there is a new impetus to the young people to enter math and science. And there is 

more encouragement from the scholars in my State, in my area; 

and young people are better dressed, they are better fed, they are 

better educated. About the only thing that they are missing that 

I had and some of you had was hardship, and we don’t want them 

to have that. But most of them are more intelligent. 

A lot of minorities have the opportunity now to go to school and 

there has been some emphasis on that the last 10 years in the 

South and the West. And I think youngsters react to that, and I 

think they realize that when we give them the statistics about 

China having—what, seven times as many engineers graduating; 

India, three or four times as many; and Mexico, as many or more— 

I think they are smart enough to know that, and they may be attracted to something where they are needed. Maybe we have just 

not done a good enough sales job on young people. 

There is a new school in Texarkana, Texas, that is totally, completely aimed towards math and science; and the problem there is 

that they are going to have a group of people that are just smart 

and intelligent in math and science and miss the other academic 

thrusts, and they are doing something to address that. But it is 

working. 

And I think we have youngsters that know they are needed there 

and they may be responding. I would like to think that is it. 

Mr. GORDON. Just a quick footnote on that. We are celebrating 

our 50th anniversary of the Science Committee. We were a result 

of Congress’ reaction to Sputnik. The other reaction to Sputnik was 

a whole group of kids that wanted to go into math and science because NASA was getting up and going and they really saw something there. 

I think that we have another Sputnik program right now, and 

that is with energy; and I think with the emphasis on our energy 

security, as well as expanding different types of energy, I am hoping that is also something that is going to inspire young folks to 

see that there are those opportunities, and to do that, you need to 

get engineering and those kinds of backgrounds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will just be brief. 

I served on the Science Committee for many years, and I am on 

leave now. But it is really one of the finest committees in the Congress. It is just a wonderful committee, and the work that you did 

in the last Congress is just fabulous; it was so important to our 

country to advance us. 

And there is more to be done. I know that the staff is just—it 

is really one of the finest staffs in the Congress. I mean, you are 

right that PhDs are the masters of expertise, so certainly that 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
171 

doesn’t come cheap. But I tell you that the benefit for the country 

is priceless when we look at what we are going to need to do. 

Just in listening to the issue of why we don’t have more young 

people going into science, engineering and math, I was—it made 

me think that sometimes even the people we have in those subjects 

move on to other things and some of it has to do with remuneration. My son is an undergraduate at Stanford, and he said one of 

the smartest guys he ever met, who was a math genius, ended up 

on Wall Street, not in a lab or in a science. 

Mr. LUNGREN. He may be coming back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. He may be coming back. But I do think when you 

take a look at—the one thread about excellence for kids in school 

is whether they have a fabulous teacher. You can slice and dice it; 

if you have a fabulous teacher, it relates to having good outcomes. 

And so certainly having teachers who are able to really teach math 

and science because they know it themselves is going to be very, 

very important. 

So I just wanted to say thanks to you two for being here, for the 

great job that you did last year and the great job I know you are 

going to do this year. It is really, really important. 

Mr. HALL. I worked with you a lot of years and I know of your 

background, your successes; and I am not surprised that you have 

a son that is at Stanford. I couldn’t get in Stanford, much less ever 

hope to get out with my background. 

I had a letter from Rice University telling me I was in the top 

10 to be chancellor. And I wrote them back and gave them a copy 

of my transcript of my last year in law school and also wrote and 

told them about an article that appeared in the paper when I was 

county judge about my background in high school. It said one time 

that I had made four Fs and a D and my daddy whipped me for 

spending too much time on one subject. 

That wasn’t true, but that is something they used in politics 

against us. 

But I admire you for your boy and I know you are proud of him. 

Mr. GORDON. If I might add just one thing about staff—the difficulty in getting good staff? 

When I was first elected chairman, the first thing I did—or even 

before the election—after the election, before I was asked to be 

chairman, I went to the minority and said, Staff, you can be the 

first to apply for jobs; and our first seven hires came off the minority staff. Not only was it the right thing to do, but we needed to 

do it to get the best talent we can. And we just had our first turnover of a staff director, and it was one of the former minority staffers who is the new staff director. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. And Ranking 

Member Hall, thank you. 

And thank you for bringing a little bit of relief to this pretty boring and long, tenuous day. Thank you so much. 

Good afternoon. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good afternoon. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
172 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Small Business, for coming in today; 

we appreciate your time and look forward to your testimony, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez and Ranking Member Mr. Graves. 

Chairlady Vela ́zquez. 

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

YORK 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Lungren. I really appreciate the opportunity to come before you 

today to discuss the budget submission for the House Small Business Committee in the 111th Congress. 

We are requesting funds of 7.92 million, a budget we developed 

with great cooperation from Ranking Member Graves’ office. Consistent with changes we made in the last Congress, the ranking 

member has full control over a third of that budget. And I want 

to stress that he has full control; that means he gets to determine 

spending priorities on everything from travel to staff salaries. In 

other words, Mr. Graves gets to make the same decisions for his 

staff as I do for mine. 

A significant part of the increase I am requesting will go towards 

nine new staff positions. Those new staffers will be allocated between both the majority and the minority and will work for our five 

subcommittees. This is critical because those subcommittees are 

going to have significantly more responsibility in the coming Congress. Now that they each have their own jurisdiction, they will 

have the ability to not only hold hearings, but to draft legislation 

and convene markups. 

In order to do so, they will need sufficient staff support. Additional staffers will also work with other members’ offices to help 

them do their best for local businesses. The committee has been inundated with requests for casework on everything from SBA loans 

to accessing capital; but as of today, we just don’t have the staff 

to fully address every inquiry. 

We are also seeking funds for holding field hearings. As Congress 

is making policy to stimulate the economy, we need to be measuring its impact, not just here in Washington, but in different parts 

of the country. Remember, small firms do not have money for highpriced lobbyists. We need to be able to go to them. That way we 

can hear the stories and bring their feedback here to Washington. 

Another important provision would allocate funds for conducting 

extensive oversight on contracting and procurement over which the 

committee has jurisdiction. With Congress about to pass a stimulus 

package containing billions of dollars in new Federal contracts, it 

is important that we have adequate resources to guard against 

fraud and abuse. 

The budget also accounts for the committee’s technology needs. 

We will use the additional funding to subscribe to the House 

Webcast service, which will allow entrepreneurs across the country 

to watch our hearings. This is a service that the committee wasn’t 

able to provide before since the hearing room was only recently 

fitted with the proper audiovisual equipment. 

Additionally, I am requesting funds for staff BlackBerrys, seeing 

as we are the only majority committee staff without them. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
173 

In the last Congress, this committee was awarded the smallest— 

and I underline, smallest—allocation of any other. In fact, we only 

received 3.3 percent more than we did during the 103rd Congress, 

which was 15 years ago. Since then, our budget has not come close 

to keeping pace with inflation, a fact that has adversely affected 

our ability to carry out our work. 

Even so, with the smallest staff and the lowest budget, we held 

the second-most hearings of any committee and set a record of bills 

passed. And I would like to point out that record includes bills 

passed by minority. If the House Administration Committee is kind 

enough to approve our new budget, we will be able to do even more 

in the next 2 years. 

Entrepreneurs are proven job creators and proven catalysts for 

economy growth. In the next few months, they will play a pivotal 

role in this country’s recovery efforts. I know I speak for the entire 

Small Business Committee when I say we look forward to helping 

them play that role and that we look forward to strengthening the 

small business community with a new budget in the new Congress. 

I appreciate your time and will be willing to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
174 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 51249A.094
175 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 51249A.095
176 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 51249A.096
177 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 51249A.097
178 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 51249A.098
179 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 51249A.099
180 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 51249A.100
181 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Graves. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. GRAVES. The only thing I could add, I guess, to what the 

chairwoman said is, for the first time, the five subcommittees have 

legislative jurisdiction. That has never happened before in the 

Small Business Committee, which kind of makes this a little bit 

unique compared to other committees. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Questions, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I listened to your testimony very carefully and one of the strongest points that comes out of it is that you are starting from a very 

small base and you think you need to gear up for additional responsibilities. But based on the staff analysis, the request from 

your committee is a 32 percent increase—— 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Which is far larger than any request 

of any committee; and we are being told now that maybe times are 

such that we have got to cut back here. 

And so I am just asking, how do I explain to folks a 32 percent 

increase when the average request from all the committees in the 

Congress submitted thus far—we have one that is still outstanding, 

but those for that have come in thus far it is about 7.2 percent. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. If I may, our budget in the 110th Congress was 

below $6 million. But when you start with such a small dollar 

amount, what we are doing is playing a catch-up game to be able 

to get the type of resources that will enable the committee, given 

the new responsibility to all the subcommittees, to do hearings, 

markups, the draft legislation, to conduct field hearings. 

And I will submit to you that this committee is doing so much 

casework. Every single day we are inundated with Members’ requests to handle cases in their own districts—with people who are 

small businesses that can’t get loans because of the credit crunch, 

and they want to know what information exists in terms of the 

SBA small business lending programs, what is the best program 

that exists for them to go about it; or problems with getting procurement, getting to the Federal marketplace. So we have to constantly be able to provide the type of guidance, technical assistance 

and information for small businesses who are struggling in this 

credit crunch to be able to survive. 

So given the time, the crisis that we are in, this is when we really need to increase the budget for the committee that has the 

smallest of the 18 committees that we have in Congress. So it is 

not the percentage; yes, 32 is high, but it is misleading when you 

compare the dollar amount that it represents. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You both have mentioned a new jurisdictional responsibility for the subcommittees. Where did that jurisdiction lie 

before? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. We didn’t have that type of jurisdiction. Now all 

the subcommittees have been vetted with a formal legislative jurisVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Nov 24, 2009 Jkt 053140 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\VAN\51249.XXX 51249

erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
182 

diction, so—before, the markups and drafting legislation was conducted in the full committee. 

But we didn’t—we didn’t have that type of regular order. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But the committee had the legislative jurisdiction? 

It didn’t come from another committee? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. No. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Okay. I am just trying to figure—— 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is good for me and it is good for the minority. There is going to be more transparency. There is going to be 

more input from both sides of the aisle. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And I very much appreciate your outlining the 

one-third/two-thirds rule and how extensive it is in your committee. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Correct. When I was sitting in that chair and I 

was the ranking, I didn’t have—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. We appreciate your showing progress in that direction. 

The last thing I would say is, we talked here about the fact that 

we were asked, as has been the practice for some time, to have authorization for 2 years. But it might be good for us to ask committees to come back after the first year to show us how they are 

doing. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Tell us how the requests stacked up 

with what actually occurred and if there are new circumstances 

that we ought to address going in the second year. We hope that 

you would cooperate with us on that. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Oh, I will welcome that invitation. The last 2 

years, we were one of the most productive committees, holding 

more than 60 hearings, passing more than 21 bills through the 

House, and almost half of those were sponsored by the minority. 

So—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. You are doing so well, I don’t know why you 

changed to subcommittees. You should have stayed with the full 

committee. Anyway, thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. First, let me thank both the chairwoman and the 

ranking member for really a very productive effort and really when 

you look at our economic challenges, the role of small businesses 

is more important today than ever. So we know that as we move 

forward in this Congress, your efforts are going to be just key to 

our economic recovery. 

I can remember in past years when we had contentious discussions about this budget, and clearly you two have come to a meeting of the minds, and it is good to see the collaboration that you 

are exhibiting because really our small businesses are going to require that from all of us. So you are a good model for all of us up 

here. 

Just looking at the budget, you started out low. And so it is a 

large percentage increase, although in terms of dollar amounts it 

is not that much—it is not as big as some other committees have 

asked for. It looks to me that if you had adjusted for inflation, actually you would be getting about what you got in 1994 adjusted for 

inflation. Is that incorrect? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It is correct. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
183 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think that is important and clearly we 

don’t know all that we are going to be able to do, but I think certainly we should do our best to try to support the terrific efforts 

that you have made. 

So I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. It appears that the bulk of your increase, would 

that be on staffing positions or other areas? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Staff and also technology. 

Mr. HARPER. Okay. And what impact would it have on your committee if you delayed hiring or filling the new positions? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, then maybe when small businesses from 

your district call your office and ask for assistance and you refer 

them to us, it would take instead of a week, maybe 6 months and 

by then they might have to close their shop. We are in dire need. 

This is not that we come here to say that we are going to increase 

the staff to—we need it. It is overwhelming, especially because it 

is the Small Business Committee. And people are suffering in this 

country. And it is important for them that when we say that small 

businesses are the engine of our economy, that they are the job creators, that in order to get this economy back on track we need to 

help them. We have to provide the assistance that they need. And 

this is the time to empower the committee to do more. We have 

been doing much more with less. It is time, given the crisis that 

we are in, that we get the resources that we need. 

Mr. HARPER. There are projected nine new positions, correct? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. HARPER. There are still positions on the majority and minority that are going to be filled, and those are already within the 

budget or are available to go ahead and fill those positions. And I 

show that most of them are due to be filled in March of this year, 

is that correct? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. And will that alleviate some of the problem in and 

of itself on some of those positions or are those doing casework? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, five of the staff will go to work on the five 

subcommittees. One will be—three will be for the minority, five for 

the majority. One of those will be doing just casework. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you for the input. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I remember I served on that committee 

many years ago. I remember the fights and hardships that you 

had, you know, fighting to try to get up to parity then. And it is 

quite admirable now that you don’t harbor any misgivings that 

were trying to get you up there, that you do respect the minority. 

And we appreciate—I appreciate that because you never know, majority today, minority tomorrow. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is right. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is nice that you do that. Thank you for being 

here. Thank you for taking your time, Chairperson Velasquez. 

Ranking Member Graves, appreciate it. Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Natural Resources. We will be extremely brief 

because Mr. Rahall and Mr. Hastings—you are the last committee. 

We have nothing left. So nothing left to give but our sympathies. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
184 

Thank you for appearing here today, Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings. We look forward to your testimony, and you 

may begin your presentation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

Mr. RAHALL. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Lungren, members of the Committee, I do appreciate the opportunity to present 

to you on behalf of myself and our ranking member on the Natural 

Resources Committee, Doc Hastings, our committee’s budget for the 

111th Congress. 

The amount we are requesting represents a 4.8 percent increase 

in 2009 over the committee’s budget for the second session of the 

110th Congress with an additional 5 percent increase for 2010. We 

believe this small increase is justifiable in light of the aggressive 

schedule of hearings the committee intends to conduct, including in 

the field. 

For instance, our committee has jurisdiction over issues affecting 

Native Americans and the U.S. territorial possessions. In this regard the Native American population continues to be one of the 

most underserved in this Nation, and many tribes remain impoverished. Likewise, the Territories face their own set of issues, from 

political self-determination in Puerto Rico to the massive military 

buildup in Guam. It is our intention to bring the committee out to 

Indian Country and to our Territories so that we can see and hear 

firsthand the problems they face. 

A brief review of the committee’s oversight plan that was submitted with our budget proposal will also give you an idea of the 

other pressing issues the committee intends to address both 

through oversight and legislation. The increases we are proposing 

reflect the increased cost of vendor services, such as Web site development and Web hosting services, and we expect an increase in 

the cost of supplies, materials, and equipment in the latter half of 

the Congress and an increase in the cost of wireless telecommunications services and related equipment. 

We have also requested a small cost of living adjustment for our 

staff, many of whom have dedicated their careers to public service. 

The committee is allocated 69 staffers in total. Of that number 40 

serve in the majority, 20 serve the minority and 9 are shared employees, staffers such as system administrators, the chief clerk, and 

the chief financial officer. In this regard one-third of the salary 

budget is controlled by the minority. 

The remainder of the budget, items such as travel and supplies, 

is treated openly. By this I mean there is no distinction or prejudice between the majority and the minority. Computers, copiers, 

and other equipment are repaired or replaced as needed without 

regard to whether it is a Democrat or Republican staffer using it. 

The same applies with travel. 

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member Lungren, to present our proposed budget. 

[The statement of Mr. Rahall follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
185 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 51249A.101
186 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 51249A.102
187 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 51249A.103
188 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hastings. 

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

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Lungren, and members of the committee. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. This is my first appearance 

as a ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee and 

my first opportunity to work closely with Chairman Rahall. However, it is not my first time in testifying before the House Administration and seeking funds as a chairman or ranking member. But 

you probably are not surprised that I much more like this position 

than coming here testifying as a ranking member and chairman of 

the Ethics Committee as I did in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have our own right here. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I don’t remember if we had bad memories of you 

or not. I don’t recall. 

Recognizing that Chairman Rahall and I are the last pair, at 

least we understand we are the last pair to testify today, I will 

keep my remarks very, very brief. 

First, the budget submission you have received very clearly allocates two-thirds of staff salary funds to the majority and fully onethird to the minority. 

Second, the submission reflects my request to Chairman Rahall 

to update the minority’s Web site and Internet presence. Given the 

critical role that the Internet plays in communicating, disseminating information in today’s world, I think that is a very high priority. 

Finally, although past practice on this committee has not been 

for the minority to directly control one-third funds for travel and 

equipment, it is also my understanding that minority requests for 

equipment upgrades, needed materials and resources for travel 

have always been fully met. I certainly anticipated an even-handed 

administration of these nonsalaried funds in this Congress, and I 

will be working with Chairman Rahall in my new position as ranking member to ensure that the one-third budget rights of the minority are properly respected. 

So thank you again for the opportunity, and I will be more than 

happy to respond to any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
189 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 51249A.104
190 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Since you 

spoke, Congressman Hastings, about the fact that you are going to 

upgrade your Web site because we need to communicate better, one 

of the things that we have talked about here is even though we are 

going to authorize a 2-year cycle, then it might be good to have 

committees come back here after a year to report on how they are 

doing and to give us an idea of how their expectations have been 

met with the budget that they had presented to us and whether 

this changed circumstances. And it is also a part of increased 

transparency. And I would hope that both of you would fully cooperate with that. 

Mr. RAHALL. Fine with me, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I have no problem with that. I think oversight is 

important when you are talking about the institution of Congress. 

For full disclosure, I am a proponent of biennial budgeting for the 

Congress. And I am glad you maybe have taken the first step to 

lead us to that position because I think biennial budgeting for the 

overall Congress would give us frankly more oversight of what our 

responsibilities are in all the standing committees. So I hope this 

is a precedent. But I certainly have no problem coming back and 

reporting what we have done the first year. 

Mr. RAHALL. I agree. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to put you on the 

spot. Since you have Territories over there, do you know where 

Swains Island is? Do you have any idea where that is? 

Mr. RAHALL. No, sir. That is one purpose for our increased travel 

budget. I will find out exactly. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Here is a little factoid for you. I was doing some 

research on immigration and citizenship status. If you are born in 

American Samoa or Swains Island, not of American parents, of people who are residents of those two places you are not an American 

citizen. You are under U.S. law an American national, which is a 

unique type of status that we established years ago. As opposed to 

if you are in Guam, you are an American citizen. You can’t vote 

for a Congress person. But if you move to the United States you 

can. So as I was going through that, I certainly know where American Samoa is. But I have no idea where the Swains Island is. But 

you might take a look at that and help me out next time. 

Mr. RAHALL. We will do our best. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have no questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. I thought that maybe you thought 

maybe Nicky was from Swains Island for a minute there. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Not with that accent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Not with that accent. Thank you, all. Thank you, 

Chairman Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Chairman Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have got an answer. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Swains Island is an atoll in the Tokelau chain, the 

most northwesterly island administered by American Samoa. 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING
191 

The CHAIRMAN. Where are the other places that you mention 

that? That will conclude our hearing. We do have three other committees that we need to have come in front of us, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means and the Rules Committee. We will 

check our schedules and make sure that we can get that done to 

expedite this, to get this out of the way. Thank you all. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


erjones on DSK42TV3C1PROD with HEARING