UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

of the COMMITTEE on HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION
A HISTORY 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

1947–2012

INTRODUCTION III

INTRODUCTORY LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN LUNGREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 1947–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

II. PREDECESSOR PANELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

III. JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

IV. FEDERAL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S 

 ELECTORAL PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 A. Th e Poll Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 B. Voting for Armed Services and Citizens Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

 C. Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

 D. National Voter Registration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

 E. Help America Vote Act of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

V. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

VI. CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

VII. BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

 A. Funding Accounts and Staffi ng for Members and Committees Overview and Development . . . . . . . . . . . 149

 1. Committee Funding Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

 2. Member Allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

 3. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

 4. Offi ce Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

 5. Offi cial Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

 6. Franking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

 B. Administrative and Financial Operations: Oversight of Offi cers and a Changing Role 

 for the Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

 C. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

 1. Computerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

 2. Electronic Voting in the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

 3. Televised and Webcast House Floor Debate and Committee Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

 D. Service and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

 1. Administration of House Offi ce Buildings and the House Wing of the Capitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

 2. Capitol Visitor Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

 3. House Restaurant System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

 4. Recycling and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

 5. House Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I V A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

 6. House Barber Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

 7. House Beauty Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

 E. Miscellaneous Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

 1. Member Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

 2. Government Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

 3. Art in the Capitol and House Offi ce Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

 4. House Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

 5. Regulating Unoffi cial Member Caucuses and Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs) . . . . . . . . . . . 285

VIII. CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING THE NATION’S CAPITOL 

 AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 

IX. OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

 A. Library of Congress/Joint Committee on the Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

 B. Congressional Research Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

 C. Congressional Printing, Documents Distribution, and Records Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

 D. United States Botanic Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

X. NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

 A. Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

 B. National Library of Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

 C. Monuments and Memorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

 D. Hatch Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

XI. CONCLUSION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE RECORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

APPENDIX B: TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

 Table 1. Chronological Listing of Members of the Committee on House Administration, 1947–2012 . . . . . . 451

 Table 2. Alphabetic Listing of Members of the Committee on House Administration, 1947–2012 . . . . . . . . 466

 Table 3. Chronological Listing of Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 

 Committee on House Administration, 1947-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479

 Table 4. Chronological Listing of Subcommittees of the Committee on 

 House Administration, and Members of those Subcommittee, 1947–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484

 Table 5. Bills Reported by the Committee that Were Enacted into Law, 1947–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526

V I A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Clockwise from top

Jamie Fleet – Minority Staff Director

Philip Kiko – Staff Director & General Counsel

Th e Hon. Daniel E. Lungren – Chairman

Th e Hon. Robert Brady – Ranking Member 
INTRODUCTION VII

From ensuring Capitol security, a mission forever changed on September 11, 2001, to protecting and improving our electoral process through the advancement of landmark election 

reforms, this Committee is charged with executing some of the most vital responsibilities in 

the House of Representatives. 

Acting primarily behind the scenes, the Committee on House Administration has 

responded to some of the most tragic and controversial events that have transpired in the 

United States Congress during the past several decades. 

Since its establishment in 1947, many distinguished Chairpersons and Members have 

served on this Committee and its respective subcommittees, including House Speaker John 

Boehner and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. Th is history, written in their honor, discusses in 

great detail their challenges and lasting contributions.

It is not only a privilege to serve as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, but also a great honor to participate in the preservation of the Committee’s rich history.

Daniel E. Lungren

Chairman, Committee on House Administration

September 17, 2012

I N T RODUC TORY L ET T E R 

FROM CHAIRMAN LUNGREN

INTRODUCTION 1

CH A I R M E N OF T H E C OM M I T T E E 

ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION 1947–2011

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF R EPR ESENTATIVES

NAME STATE PARTY SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN

Karl M. Le Compte* Iowa R Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

(80th Congress)

Mary T. Norton New Jersey D Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951

(81st Congress)

Th omas B. Stanley Virginia D Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953

(82nd Congress)

Karl M. Le Compte* Iowa R Jan. 14, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

(83rd Congress)

Omar T. Burleson Texas D Jan. 5, 1955–July 30, 1968

(84th–90th Congresses)

Samuel N. Friedel Maryland D July 30, 1968–Jan. 3, 1971

(90th–91st Congresses)

Wayne L. Hays Ohio D Jan. 22, 1971–June 21, 1976

(92nd–94th Congresses)

Frank Th ompson Jr. New Jersey D June 23, 1976–Jan. 3, 1981

(94th–96th Congresses)

Lucien N. Nedzi

[Acting Chair]

Michigan D June 18, 1980

(96th Congress)

Acting Chair during interruption of 

service by Th ompson

Augustus F. Hawkins California D Jan. 28, 1981–Sept. 6, 1984

(97th–98th Congresses)

Frank Annunzio Illinois D Sept. 6, 1984–Jan. 3, 1991

(98th– 101st Congresses)
2 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

NAME STATE PARTY SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN

Charles G. Rose III North 

Carolina

D Jan. 3, 1991–Jan. 3, 1993

(102nd–103rd Congresses

William M. Th omas California R Jan. 4, 1995–Jan. 3, 2001

(104th–106th Congresses)

Robert W. Ney Ohio R Jan. 20, 2001–Nov. 3, 2006

(107th–109th Congresses)

Vernon J. Ehlers

[Acting Chair]

Michigan R Jan. 18, 2006–Nov. 3, 2006

(109th Congress)

Acting Chair during interruption of 

service by Ney

Vernon J. Ehlers Michigan R Nov. 4, 2006–Jan. 3, 2007

(109th Congress)

Juanita Millender-McDonald California D Jan. 4, 2007–April 22, 2007

(110th Congress)

Robert A. Brady Pennsylvania D May 24, 2007–Jan. 3, 2011

(110th–111th Congresses)

Daniel E. Lungren California R Jan. 5, 2011–Jan. 3, 2013

(112th Congress)

* Members served non-consecutive terms as Chairman.
INTRODUCTION 3

LeCOMPTE, KARL M. (1887–1972)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 80th and 83rd Congresses

Le Compte, Karl Miles, a Representative from Iowa; born in Corydon, Wayne County, Iowa, 

May 25, 1887; attended the public schools and was graduated from the State University of Iowa 

at Iowa City in 1909; became owner and publisher of the Corydon Times-Republican in 1910; 

during the First World War served as a private in the medical detachment of United States 

General Hospital No. 26 in 1918; member of the State senate 1917–1921; elected as a Republican 

to the Seventy-sixth and to the nine succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1939–January 3, 1959); 

chairman, Committee on House Administration (Eightieth and Eighty-third Congresses); was 

not a candidate for renomination in 1958 to the Eighty-sixth Congress; returned to newspaper 

publishing; retired but continued as a contributing editor; died in Centerville, Iowa, September 

30, 1972; interment in Corydon Cemetery, Corydon, Iowa.
4 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Norton, Mary Teresa, a Representative from New Jersey; born in Jersey City, N.J., March 7, 

1875; attended parochial schools and the Jersey City High School; was graduated from Packard 

Business College, New York City, in 1896; president of the Queen’s Daughters’ Day Nursery 

Association of Jersey City 1916–1927; appointed to represent Hudson County on the State 

Democratic committee in 1920; elected a member of that committee in 1921 and served as vice 

chairman 1921–1931 and as chairman 1932–1935; also served as vice chairman of the Hudson 

County Democratic Committee; elected county freeholder in 1922; delegate at large to the 

Democratic National Conventions in 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948; delegate 

to International Labor Conference at Paris, France, in 1945; elected as a Democrat to the Sixtyninth and to the twelve succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1925–January 3, 1951); chairwoman, 

Committee on District of Columbia (Seventy-second through Seventy-fi fth Congresses), Committee on Labor (Seventy-fi fth through Seventy-ninth Congresses), Committee on Memorials 

(Seventy-seventh Congress), Committee on House Administration (Eighty-fi rst Congress); 

was not a candidate for renomination in 1950; consultant, Women’s Advisory Committee on 

Defense Manpower, Department of Labor, 1951 and 1952; died in Greenwich, Conn., August 

2, 1959; interment in Holy Name Cemetery, Jersey City, N.J. 

Bibliography

Mitchell, Gary. “Women Standing for Women: Th e Early Political Career of Mary T. Norton.” New 

Jersey History 96 (Spring-Summer 1978): 27-42; Rees, Maureen. “Mary Norton: A Grand Girl.” Journal 

of the Rutgers University Libraries 47 (December 1985): 59-75. 

NORTON, M ARY T. (1875–1959)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 81s t Congress
INTRODUCTION 5

Stanley, Th omas Bahnson, a Representative from Virginia; born on a farm near Spencer, Henry 

County, Va., July 16, 1890; attended the local public schools and Eastman Business College, 

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; engaged in furniture manufacturing since 1924; dairy farmer and livestock 

breeder; member of State house of delegates 1930–1946, serving as speaker 1942–1946; elected 

as a Democrat to the Seventy-ninth Congress to fi ll the vacancy caused by the resignation of 

Th omas G. Burch and at the same time was elected to the Eightieth Congress; reelected to the 

Eighty-fi rst, Eighty-second, and Eighty-third Congresses, and served from November 5, 1946, 

until his resignation February 3, 1953, having entered the campaign for Governor; chairman, 

Committee on House Administration (Eighty-second Congress); elected Governor of Virginia 

for the term commencing January 1954 and ending January 1958; trustee of Randolph-Macon 

College; vice president and director of First National Bank, Bassett, Va.; chairman, Commission on State and Local Revenues and Expenditures (a tax study commission); resumed his 

business of furniture manufacturing; died in Martinsville, Va., July 10, 1970; interment in 

Roselawn Burial Park.

STA NLEY, THOM AS B. (1890–1970)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 82 n d Congress
6 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Burleson, Omar Truman, a Representative from Texas; born in Anson, Jones County, Tex., 

March 19, 1906; attended the public schools, Abilene Christian College, and Hardin-Simmons 

University at Abilene, Tex.; was graduated from Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., in 

1929; was admitted to the bar the same year and commenced practice in Gorman, Tex.; county 

attorney of Jones County, Tex., 1931–1934; judge of Jones County, Tex., 1934–1940; special 

agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1940 and 1941; secretary to Congressman Sam 

Russell of Texas in 1941 and 1942; general counsel for the Housing Authority, District of 

Columbia, in 1942; served in the United States Navy from December 1942 to April 1946, with 

service in the South Pacifi c Th eater; elected as a Democrat to the Eightieth Congress; reelected 

to the fi fteen succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1947, until his resignation 

December 31, 1978; chairman, Committee on House Administration (Eighty-fourth through 

Ninetieth Congresses), Joint Committee on the Library (Eighty-fourth through Ninetieth 

Congresses), Joint Committee on Printing (Eighty-fourth Congress); was not a candidate for 

reelection in 1978 to the Ninety-sixth Congress; was a resident of Abilene, Tex., until his death 

there on May 14, 1991. 

Bibliography

Ralph Nader Congress Project. Citizens Look at Congress: Omar Burleson, Democratic Representative 

from Texas. Washington, D. C.: Grossman Publishers, 1972.

BUR LESON, OM AR T. (1906–1991)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 84th–90th Congresses
INTRODUCTION 7

Friedel, Samuel Nathaniel, a Representative from Maryland; born in Washington, D.C., April 

18, 1898; moved with his family to Baltimore, Md., when six months of age; attended the 

public schools and Strayer Business College; mailing clerk in a Baltimore store 1919–1923; 

founder and president of Industrial Loan Co., 1926–1956; member of the State house of 

delegates 1935–1939; member of the city council of Baltimore 1939–1952, representing the 

fi rst and later the fi fth district; delegate, Democratic National Conventions, 1964 and 1968; 

elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-third and to the eight succeeding Congresses (January 

3, 1953–January 3, 1971); chairman, Committee on House Administration (Ninetieth and 

Ninety-fi rst Congresses), Joint Committee on the Library (Ninety-fi rst Congress), Joint Committee on Printing (Ninety-fi rst Congress); unsuccessful candidate for renomination in 1970 to 

the Ninety-second Congress; died in Towson, Md., March 21, 1979; interment in the Hebrew 

Friendship Cemetery, Baltimore, Md. 

FRIEDEL, SAMUEL N. (1898–1979)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 90th–91st Congresses
8 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Hays, Wayne Levere, a Representative from Ohio; born in Bannock, Belmont County, Ohio, 

May 13, 1911; attended the public schools of Bannock and St. Clairsville, Ohio; was graduated from Ohio State University at Columbus in 1933; student at Duke University, Durham, 

N.C., in 1935; teacher in Flushing, Ohio, 1934–1937 and Findlay, Ohio, in 1937 and 1938; 

also engaged in agricultural pursuits; mayor of Flushing, Ohio, 1939–1945; served in the 

State senate in 1941 and 1942; Commissioner, Belmont County, 1945–1949; member of the 

Offi cers’ Reserve Corps, United States Army, from 1933 until called to active duty as a second 

lieutenant on December 8, 1941; was separated from service with medical discharge in August 

1942; chairman, board of directors, Citizens National Bank, Flushing, Ohio, since December 

1953; delegate, Democratic National Conventions, 1960, 1964, and 1968; chairman, House 

of Representatives delegation to NATO Parliamentarians Conference since beginning of 

United States participation, and president of conference in 1956 and 1967; president, North 

Atlantic Assembly, 1969–1970; elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-fi rst and to the thirteen 

succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1949, until his resignation September 1, 

1976; chairman, Committee on House Administration (Ninety-second through Ninety-fourth 

Congresses), Joint Committee on Printing (Ninety-second through Ninety-fourth Congresses), 

Joint Committee on the Library (Ninety-second Congress); resigned as chairman of Committee on House Administration on June 18, 1976; successful candidate in the primary in 1976 to 

the Ninety-fi fth Congress but withdrew before the general election; member of the Ohio state 

house of representatives, 1978–1980; was a resident of St. Clairsville, Ohio, until his death in 

Wheeling, W.Va., on February 10, 1989; interment in Union Cemetery, St. Clairsville, Ohio. 

H AYS, WAY N E L . (1911–1989)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 92nd–94th Congresses
INTRODUCTION 9

Th ompson, Frank, Jr., a Representative from New Jersey; born in Trenton, Mercer County, N.J., 

July 26, 1918; attended parochial and public schools and Wake Forest (N.C.) College, 1941 

and the Wake Forest Law School; served in the United States Navy 1941–1948; received three 

combat decorations for action at Iwo Jima and Okinawa; commanded the United States Naval 

Reserve Battallion 4-22 and completed a seventeen-month tour of active duty, from August 

1950 to January 1952, on the staff of the commander, Eastern Sea Frontier, and released from 

active duty January 1, 1952; was admitted to the bar in 1948 and commenced the practice of 

law in Trenton, N.J.; member of the State house of assembly 1950–1954, serving as assistant 

minority leader in 1950 and minority leader in 1954; elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-fourth 

Congress; reelected to the twelve succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1955, 

until his resignation December 29, 1980; chairman, Joint Committee on Printing (Ninetyfourth and Ninety-sixth Congresses), Committee on House Administration (Ninety-fourth, 

Ninety-fi fth, and Ninety-sixth Congresses); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1980 to 

the Ninety-seventh Congress; was a resident of Alexandria, Va., until his death in Bethesda, 

Md., on July 22, 1989. 

Bibliography

Wilson, Augusta Elliot. Liberal Leader in the House — Frank Th ompson, Jr. Washington: Acropolis 

Books, 1968. 

THOMPSON, FRANK, JR. (1918–1989)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 94th–96th Congresses
10 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Nedzi, Lucien Norbert, a Representative from Michigan; born in Hamtramck, Wayne County, 

Mich., May 28, 1925; graduated from Hamtramck High School, Hamtramck, Mich., 1943; 

B.A., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1948; attended the University of Detroit Law 

School, Detroit, Mich., 1949; J.D., University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1951; 

United States Army, 1944–1946, served as a combat infantryman in the Philippines and in the 

Corps of Engineers in Japan; United States Army Reserve, 1946–1953, served in the Korean 

confl ict; admitted to the Michigan bar in January 1952; admitted to the District of Columbia 

bar in 1977; lawyer, private practice; Wayne County, Mich., public administrator, 1955–1961; 

delegate to the Democratic National Conventions, 1960 and 1968; elected as a Democrat to 

the Eighty-seventh Congress, by special election, to fi ll the vacancy caused by the resignation 

of United States Representative Th addeus M. Machrowicz; reelected to the nine succeeding 

Congresses (November 7, 1961–January 3, 1981); chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence 

(Ninety-fourth Congress), Joint Committee on the Library (Ninety-third through Ninety-fi fth 

Congresses), Committee on House Administration (Ninety-sixth Congress); was not a candidate 

for reelection to the Ninety-seventh Congress in 1980; is a resident of McLean, Va. 

NEDZI, LUCIEN N. (1925– )

Acting Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 96th Congress
INTRODUCTION 11

Hawkins, Augustus Freeman (Gus), a Representative from California; born in Shreveport, 

Caddo Parish, La., August 31, 1907; in 1918, moved to Los Angeles, Calif., with his parents; 

attended local public schools; graduated from Jeff erson High School in 1926, from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1931, and from the University of Southern California in 

1932; engaged in the real estate business in 1941; member of the State assembly, 1935–1962; 

elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-eighth and to the thirteen succeeding Congresses (January 

3, 1963–January 3, 1991); chairman, Committee on House Administration (Ninety-seventh 

and Ninety-eighth Congresses), Committee on Education and Labor (Ninety-eighth through 

One Hundred First Congresses), Joint Committee on Printing (Ninety-sixth and Ninety-eighth 

Congresses), Joint Committee on the Library (Ninety-seventh Congress); was not a candidate 

for renomination in 1990 to the One Hundred Second Congress; died on November 10, 2007, 

in Bethesda, Md. 

Bibliography

”Augustus Freeman (Gus) Hawkins” in Black Americans in Congress, 1870–2007. Prepared under the 

direction of the Committee on House Administration by the Offi ce of History & Preservation, U. S. 

House of Representatives. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 2008.

H AW K I NS , AUGUST US F. (1907–20 07)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 97th–98th Congresses
12 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Annunzio, Frank, a Representative from Illinois; born in Chicago, Cook County, Ill., January 

12, 1915; graduated from Crane Technical High School, Chicago, Ill.; B.S., DePaul University, Chicago, Ill., 1940; M.A., DePaul University, Chicago, Ill., 1942; teacher, Chicago 

public schools, 1936–1943; assistant supervisor of the National Defense Program at Austin 

High School, 1942–1943; educational representative of the United Steelworkers of America, 

1943–1948; chairman, War Ration Board 40-20, 1943–1945; Advisory Committee to Illinois 

Industrial Commission on Health and Safety, 1944–1949; Advisory Committee on Unemployment Compensation, 1944–1949; director of labor, State of Illinois, 1949–1952; elected 

as a Democrat to the Eighty-ninth and to the thirteen succeeding Congresses (January 3, 

1965–January 3, 1993); chairman, Committee on House Administration (Ninety-eighth 

through One Hundred First Congresses), Joint Committee on Printing (Ninety-eighth and One 

Hundredth Congresses), Joint Committee on the Library (Ninety-ninth and One Hundred 

First Congresses); was not a candidate for renomination in 1992 to the One Hundred Th ird 

Congress; was a resident of Chicago, Ill.; died on April 8, 2001, in Chicago, Ill.; interment in 

Queen of Heaven Cemetery, Chicago, Ill.

ANNUNZIO, FRANK (1915–20 01)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 98th–101st Congresses
INTRODUCTION 13

Rose, Charles Grandison, III, a Representative from North Carolina; born in Fayetteville, 

Cumberland County, N.C., August 10, 1939; attended the public schools; A.B., Davidson 

(N.C.) College, 1961; LL.B., University of North Carolina Law School, Chapel Hill, 1964; 

admitted to the North Carolina bar in 1964 and commenced practice in Raleigh; chief district 

court prosecutor for the Twelfth Judicial District, 1967–1970; elected as a Democrat to the 

Ninety-third and to the eleven succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1973–January 3, 1997); 

chairman, Joint Committee on Printing (One Hundred Second Congress), Committee on 

House Administration (One Hundred Second and One Hundred Th ird Congresses); was not 

a candidate for reelection to the One Hundred Fifth Congress. 

ROSE, CHARLES G. III (1939– )

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 102nd–103rd Congresses
14 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

THOMAS, WILLIAM M. (1941– )

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 104th–106th Congresses

Th omas, William Marshall, a Representative from California; born in Wallace, Shoshone 

County, Idaho, December 6, 1941; A.A., Santa Ana Community College, 1961; B.A., San Francisco State University, San Francisco, Calif., 1963; M.A., San Francisco State University, San 

Francisco, Calif., 1965; faculty, Bakersfi eld Community College, Bakersfi eld, Calif., 1965–1974; 

member of the California state assembly, 1974–1978; elected as a Republican to the Ninetysixth and to the thirteen succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979–January 3, 2007); chair, 

Committee on House Oversight (One Hundred Fourth and One Hundred Fifth Congresses); 

chair, Committee on House Administration (One Hundred Sixth Congress); chair, Committee 

on Ways and Means (One Hundred Seventh through One Hundred Ninth Congresses); not a 

candidate for reelection to the One Hundred Tenth Congress in 2006.
INTRODUCTION 15

N EY, ROBERT W. (1954– )

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 107th–109th Congresses

Ney, Robert William, a Representative from Ohio; born in Wheeling, Ohio County, W.Va., 

July 5, 1954; B.S., Ohio State University, 1976; public safety director of Bellaire, Ohio; program 

manager, health and education, Ohio Offi ce of Appalachia; teacher; member of the Ohio state 

house of representatives, 1981–1983; member of the Ohio state senate, 1985–1995; elected 

as a Republican to the One Hundred Fourth and to the fi ve succeeding Congresses until his 

resignation on November 3, 2006 (January 3, 1995–November 3, 2006); chair, Committee 

on House Administration (One Hundred Seventh through One Hundred Ninth Congresses). 
16 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

EHLERS, VERNON J. (1934– )

Acting Chairman and Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 109th Congress

Ehlers, Vernon James, a Representative from Michigan; born in Pipestone, Pipestone County, 

Minn., February 6, 1934; educated at home by his parents; attended Calvin College, Grand 

Rapids, Mich., 1952–1956; A.B., University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1956; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1960; teaching and scientifi c research, Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, 1956–1966; professor of physics, Calvin College, 

Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966–1983; commissioner, Kent County, Mich., 1975–1983; member of 

the Michigan state house of representatives, 1983–1985; member of the Michigan state senate, 

1985–1993; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Th ird Congress by special election, 

to fi ll the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Paul B. Henry, reelected 

to the eight succeeding Congresses (December 7, 1993–January 3, 2011); chair, Committee on 

House Administration (One Hundred Ninth Congress); was not a candidate for reelection to 

the One Hundred Twelfth Congress in 2010.
INTRODUCTION 17

MILLENDER-McDONALD, JUANITA (1938–20 07)

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 110th Congress

Millender-McDonald, Juanita, a Representative from California; born in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Ala., September 7, 1938; B.S., University of Redlands, Redlands, Calif., 1981; 

M.A., California State University, Los Angeles, Calif., 1988; attended University of Southern 

California, Los Angeles, Calif.; member of the Carson City, Calif., city council, 1990; mayor 

pro tempore, Carson City, Calif., 1991–1992; educator, Los Angeles Unifi ed School District, 

Los Angeles, Calif.; delegate to the Democratic National Conventions, 1984, 1992, and 2000; 

member of the California state assembly, 1993–1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Fourth Congress by special election, to fi ll the vacancy caused by the resignation of United 

States Representative Walter R. Tucker III, and reelected to the six succeeding Congresses 

(March 26, 1996–April 22, 2007); chair, Committee on House Administration (One Hundred 

Tenth Congress); died on April 22, 2007, in Carson, Calif. 

Bibliography

“Juanita Millender-McDonald” in Black Americans in Congress, 1870–2007. Prepared under 

the direction of the Committee on House Administration by the Offi ce of History & Preservation, U. S. House of Representatives. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 2008.
18 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Brady, Robert A., a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in Philadelphia, Philadelphia 

County, Pa., April 7, 1945; graduated from St. Th omas More High School, Philadelphia, Pa.; 

union offi cial; sergeant-at-arms, Philadelphia, Pa., city council, 1975–1983; chair, Philadelphia 

Democratic Party; member of the Pennsylvania Democratic state committee and Democratic 

National Committee; member of the Pennsylvania turnpike commission, 1991–1998; elected as 

a Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth Congress by special election, to fi ll the vacancy caused 

by the resignation of United States Representative Th omas Foglietta, reelected to the seven 

succeeding Congresses (May 19, 1998–present); chair, Committee on House Administration 

(One Hundred Tenth and One Hundred Eleventh Congresses).

BR A DY, ROBERT A . (1945– )

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 110th–111th Congresses
INTRODUCTION 19

Lungren, Daniel Edward, a Representative from California; born in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Calif., September 22, 1946; attended St. Barnabas School, Long Beach, 1960; 

graduated from St. Anthony High School, Long Beach, 1964; A.B., Notre Dame University, 

South Bend, Ind., 1968; attended University of Southern California Law Center, Los Angeles, 

1968–1969; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., 1971; admitted to 

the California bar in 1972; lawyer, private practice; staff for United States Senators George Murphy, California and Bill Brock, Tennessee; delegate, California State Republican conventions, 

1974–1979; cochairman, National Congressional Council, 1977–1978; elected as a Republican 

to the Ninety-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979–January 3, 1989); 

was not a candidate for renomination in 1988 to the One Hundred First Congress; elected 

California State attorney general in 1990 for the four-year term beginning in January 1991 

and reelected in 1994; unsuccessful candidate for governor in 1998; elected as a Republican to 

the One Hundred Ninth and to the three succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005–January 3, 

2013); chair, Committee on House Administration (One Hundred Twelfth Congress). 

LUNGR EN, DANIEL E. (194 6– )

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 112th Congress

INTRODUCTION 21

INTRODUCTION

For over two centuries, the House of Representatives has 

played a central role in the governance of the United States. 

Th ere is not a policy decision or realm of endeavor on which 

the House and its Members do not exert an important infl uence. But even as the House of Representatives helps govern 

the nation, the institution itself must be governed. Like all 

large, complex, and important institutions, the House of Rep-

 resentatives needs a mechanism to set its policies, to manage 

its day-to-day operations, and to administer its activities. Th e 

Committee on House Administration is that mechanism for 

the People’s House. 

Th e Committee oversees the day-to-day operations 

that keep the House of Representatives running. It oversees 

the budgets of chamber committees and of individual Representatives. It supervises the elected offi cers of the House 

and the countless administrative and technical functions 

of the chamber. Th e Committee is responsible for ensuring security on the House side of Capitol Hill, overseeing 

the Capitol Police to maintain a careful balance between 

safety and access for the millions who visit the Capitol 

campus annually. 

Th e Committee on House Administration also exercises 

jurisdiction over the subject of federal elections on behalf of 

the House. In this regard it considers proposals to make or 

amend federal election law, and it monitors all congressional 

elections across the United States. Th e Committee also oversees the management of several important national institutions, such as the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian 

Institution, which includes the National Zoo.

In fulfi lling its responsibilities, the Committee on House 

Administration has for over 60 years not only overseen the 

day-to-day operation of the chamber, it has also been at the 

forefront of transforming the House of Representatives from 

a chamber without formal processes or administration into 

a 21st Century institution, with a billion-dollar budget and 

vital responsibilities to the nation.

Origin of the Committee

“Th e modern era on Capitol Hill,” observes political scientist Roger H. Davidson, “is widely thought to have begun 

with the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946.”1

 Th e act, the fi rst comprehensive revision of Congress’s 

organization and operation since 1789, was crafted by the 

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress to meet 

the challenges of a vastly increased legislative workload, the 

expansion of presidential authority, and a perceived erosion 

over time in the prestige of Congress. Th e most signifi cant 

provision of the act reduced the number of committees from 

48 to 19 in the House, and from 33 to 15 in the Senate. 

Other related provisions codifi ed committee jurisdictions, 

and created new rules governing committee procedures 

(which applied to every committee with the exception of the 

Appropriations Committees), and authorized permanent 

professional staff and clerical aides for House and Senate 

standing committees.

Preceding the act’s introduction, the Joint Committee, chaired by Senator Robert LaFollette with Representative A.S. Mike Monroney as vice chairman, held extensive 

hearings during which the idea of a Committee on House 

Administration was introduced. In testimony before the 

Joint Committee on March 19, 1945, Representative James 

W. Wadsworth told the panel that the House’s structure 

had “grown over 150 years without any planning toward the 

achievement of a logical, businesslike organization.” Wadsworth felt that many of the “hodgepodge conglomeration 

of committees in the House” had little important work and 

ought to be greatly reduced in number so “every committee 

on the list would be charged with really important things to 
22 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

do.”2 He then proceeded to share with the Joint Committee 

a plan for reducing the number of House committees, most 

of which was ultimately adopted by the panel as well as by 

the House and the Senate. Under the Wadsworth proposal, 

a new Committee on House Administration would absorb 

the responsibilities of 10 diff erent committees.3

In accepting Wadsworth’s plan, Congress consolidated 

within the Committee on House Administration responsibilities that were previously dispersed among 10 committees with 

far-fl ung jurisdictions. Th e new committee was to assume 

jurisdiction over federal elections; memorial designations; 

most House internal administrative, management, and personnel functions; the Smithsonian Institution, the Library 

of Congress, the Botanic Garden,4 the House Library, works 

of art for the Capitol; disposition of useless executive papers; 

and government printing and publishing.

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 also provided the statutory basis for the Joint Committee on the 

Library and the Joint Committee on Printing. Th e chair and 

four members of the House Administration Committee, it 

also provided, would serve on both joint committees together 

with the chair and four members of the Senate Rules and 

Administration Committee.5

Addressing New Demands and Expectations

Th e Committee on House Administration was offi cially 

established on January 2, 1947, at the beginning of the 

80th Congress (1947–1948). While the number of Members of the House of Representatives (435) representing the 

50 states has remained unchanged since the Committee’s 

creation, the population of the United States in six-and-ahalf decades more than doubled—growing from approximately 144 million in 1947 to approximately 310 million 

in 2011. During the same period, ever increasing demands 

have been placed on the federal government. Since World 

War II, Congress has faced a progressively more complex 

workload as it has dealt with a substantial growth in calls 

for legislative responses to social issues, increased oversight 

of executive branch activities, and a monumental increase 

in constituent requests for assistance in dealing with the 

federal government. Still more challenges for federal legislators have been prompted by globalization of the economy 

and periodic recessions, a technological and informational 

revolution, and rising security concerns. As the nation and 

Congress have addressed the challenges presented by these 

developments, the Committee’s role has undergone a signifi cant transformation as well.

Oversight of Federal Elections. Th e Committee’s most 

far-reaching legislative work arguably has been that related 

to the conduct of federal elections. Historically, the Committee has had a hand in shaping legislation that touches on 

virtually all aspects of elections. Issues concerning corrupt 

election practices, contested congressional elections, campaign fi nance disclosures, and credentials and qualifi cations 

of House Members also fall under its purview.

Under the leadership of its fi rst chairman, Karl M. 

Le Compte, one of the Committee’s early actions was to 

introduce legislation to outlaw the payment of poll taxes in 

federal elections. Although nearly two decades would pass 

before the proposal fi nally became reality, with the 1964 

ratifi cation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment barring the 

poll tax, the Committee on House Administration never 

wavered in supporting its passage. Also, throughout its 

entire history, the Committee has been increasing its eff orts 

to facilitate voting by members of the armed forces and 

American citizens abroad.

Subsequent to the ratification of the Twenty-fourth 

Amendment, the Committee led the movements (1) to make 

voter registration sites and polling places fully accessible to 

older voters and those with disabilities, which resulted in 

passage of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; and (2) to allow eligible citizens to register to 

vote in federal elections when applying for a driver’s license, 

which culminated with the enactment of the National Voter 

Registration Act, popularly known as the Motor Voter Act. 

Following the contested presidential election of 2000, the 

Committee played a pivotal role in the development and passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which provided 
INTRODUCTION 23

nearly $4 billion to improve voting equipment, recruit and 

train election workers, and increase accessibility for voters 

with disabilities.

Since 1975, the issues of money in political campaigns 

and the most appropriate way to regulate campaign spending within constitutional limits have often been the subject 

of major legislative eff orts by the Committee on House 

Administration. Members of the Committee played a leading role in crafting and overseeing major amendments to the 

Federal Election Campaign Act in 1976 and 1979. Monitoring implementation of those amendments, and considering 

the rise of policy issues such as public fi nancing, political 

action committees, and Federal Election Commission oversight, occupied the Committee throughout the 1980s and 

into the early 1990s. Reform eff orts that began in earnest 

during the mid-1990s culminated with the 2002 enactment 

of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). Th e Committee held multiple hearings on campaign 

reform, and members of the Committee were involved in 

passage of the act, which, among other things, banned 

unlimited contributions in federal elections (soft money) 

and placed additional restrictions—which were extensively 

litigated—on political advertising.

Chamber Administrative Responsibilities. Th e Committee also exerts great infl uence on the internal procedures 

and priorities of the daily operations of the House of Representatives. Routinely, the Committee has had to weigh the 

needs of Members and the various House committees against 

the need to ensure a cost-eff ective operation for Congress and 

the nation. Certainly one of the most critical components of 

realizing this vision has been a sustained eff ort by the Committee on House Administration to oversee House personnel 

and administrative functions.

Th e Committee has played a critical role in ensuring 

that Members have the resources needed to address emerging demands and expectations, while also being responsible 

for housekeeping duties as outlined in House Rule X. Th ose 

responsibilities range from disbursing appropriations for 

committee staff and Member staff salaries, to administering travel allowances for Members, assigning offi ce space, 

handling parking assignments, restaurant services, issuing 

identifi cation badges, and compiling and publishing information related to campaign fi nancial disclosures. It has also 

had a prominent role and been at the forefront in developing House administrative reform proposals, considering the 

consequences of changes in the Chamber’s service structure, 

and provided key direction in implementing and overseeing 

management of a number of reforms with major impact on 

House operations.

Meeting these diverse responsibilities has required the 

Committee to (1) adapt to changing circumstances infl uencing the operation of the institution, (2) maintain fl exibility 

in offi ce operations while establishing or reviewing standards 

and guidelines to new situations, (3) administer House eff orts 

to enhance accountability, and (4) ensure the ability of the 

chamber to fulfi ll its constitutional obligations. Over time, 

the Committee’s role in these various activities has moved 

from implementation to oversight.

Since its inception, Members of the Committee have 

consistently been at the forefront as the House of Representatives experienced the integration of various generations of 

information technology into the House, from the allocation of mechanical typewriters in the World War II era, to 

electronic voting, televised fl oor debate, arrival of personal 

computers and the Internet, development of the House Information System, and the issuance of a BlackBerry®

 to every 

Member at the beginning of the 21st Century.

The Committee has overseen the exploration and 

deployment of new security measures and technologies in 

the Capitol building and surrounding House offi ce buildings, 

the deployment of new security technologies, and accelerated 

eff orts to ensure the continuity of legislative and constituent 

service operations. A renewed urgency was brought to these 

eff orts following the 2001 terrorist attacks and the anthrax 

attacks on Capitol Hill.

Understandably, the importance and impact of the 

Committee’s actions and policy decisions has increased dramatically as the number of people employed by the House, 
24 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol, and congressional 

support agencies grew, and as the chamber’s administrative 

functions multiplied. In 1947, the House had fewer than 

2,000 employees. By 2009, the number had grown to approximately 10,000.

To facilitate the eff orts of those whom they support, the 

Committee publishes the Members’ Congressional Handbook, 

which contains the regulations for Member’s representational 

allowance; Committees’ Congressional Handbook, which governs expenditures of committee funds; Employee Handbook, 

which sets forth the rules of conduct for House employees; 

and the New Member Pictorial Directory. 

Scope of the History

During the past six decades, more than 200 diff erent Members have served on the Committee, and 17 have served as the 

Committee chair. Th is number includes fi ve future Speakers 

of the House,6 four future House Democratic Floor Leaders,7

two future House Republican Floor Leaders,8 seven future 

House Democratic Whips,9 six future Democratic Caucus 

Chairmen,10 three future House Republican Conference 

Chairmen,11 and a future Senate Majority Leader.12 Serving 

on the Committee aff orded these future House and Senate 

leaders a unique opportunity to learn about the administrative nuances of the chamber and to help House colleagues 

deal with non-legislative matters critical to their representational responsibilities.

Th is history is compiled in recognition of the more than 

ten-score members and former members of the Committee for 

their service to the House, Congress, and a grateful nation.

Today, under Chairman Daniel E. Lungren and Ranking Democratic Member Robert A. Brady, the Committee 

on House Administration continues its important role as 

the “Mayor of Capitol Hill.” To fully appreciate the Committee’s critical role in this evolution, the narrative that follows begins with a brief look at the work done by its various 

predecessor committees consolidated, and then examines the 

evolution of the Committee’s jurisdictional responsibilities 

since 1947. Finally, a series of topical chapters examine how 

the Committee has handled: (1) federal elections laws; (2) 

campaign fi nance legislation; (3) contested House elections; 

(4) its chamber administrative responsibilities; (5) oversight 

of legislative branch entities; and (6) non-legislative branch 

activities involving the Smithsonian Institution, the National 

Library of Medicine, monuments and memorials (until 1994), 

and the Hatch Act (until 1994).

Acknowledgments

Th is history was originally suggested by Representative John 

B. Larson and George Shevlin, a former Staff Director of the 

House Administration Committee. Its development was continued under the Committee Chairmanship of Representative Daniel E. Lungren and his Staff Director, Philip Kiko. It 

has benefi tted enormously from the insightful suggestions of 

Charles Howell, who was a member of the Committee’s staff 

for nearly four decades. Th e Congressional Research Service 

of the Library of Congress played an important role in the 

development of the history. Stephen W. Stathis of CRS was 

responsible for coordinating and compiling the history with 

the assistance of Ida Brudnick, Christopher Davis, Paul Dwyer, 

and Clay Wellborn. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the 

following CRS staff : Mildred Amer, Joseph Cantor, the late 

Th omas Carr, Kevin Coleman, Martha Courtney, Sam Garrett, Matthew Glassman, Pamela Hairston, Valerie Heitshusen, 

Michael Koempel, Jennifer Manning, Jack Maskell, Th omas 

A. Neale, Betsy Palmer, Harold Relyea, Denis Steven Rutkus, 

Jeff rey Seifert, Jay Shampansky, Jacob Straus, and L. Paige 

Whitaker.

Endnotes

1 Roger H. Davidson, “The Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 15, Aug. 1990, p. 357.

2 Testimony of Rep. James W. Wadsworth, U.S. Congress, 

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, hearing on H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 

March 19, 1945 (Washington: GPO, 1945), pp. 87, 94. References regarding the importance of the Wadsworth plan are found 

in: Testimony of Rep. Robert Ramspeck, U.S. Congress, Joint 

Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of 

Congress, hearing on H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 1st sess., April 

17, 1945, pp. 302–303; Testimony of Rep. Robert Hale, U.S. 
INTRODUCTION 25

Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Organization of Congress, hearing on H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 

1st sess., April 24, 1945, p. 341; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee 

on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress, 

first report of the Joint Committee on the Organizational of 

Congress pursuant to H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 1st sess., S. 

Doc. 36 (Washington: GPO, 1945), 17-18; U.S. Congress, Joint 

Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the 

Congress, report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress pursuant to H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., S. 

Rept. 1011 (Washington: GPO, 1946), pp. 4–5; Rep. A.S. Mike 

Monroney, remarks in the House, “Legislative Reorganization Act 

of 1946,” Congressional Record, vol. 92, July 25, 1946, p. 10040; 

Martin L. Fausold, James W. Wadsworth, Jr.: Th e Gentlemen From 

New York (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1975), p. 349; and 

“Congressional Reorganization,” Congressional Quarterly, v. 2, 

April–June 1946, p. 364.

3 Th e House committees to be absorbed, together with their dates 

of establishment, were: Accounts (1803); Disposition of Executive 

Papers (1889); Enrolled Bills (1789); Library (1809); Memorials 

(1929); Printing (1846); Election of the President, Vice President, 

and Representatives in Congress (1893); and Elections (1789, 

divided into three committees—Elections No. 1, No. 2, and No. 

3—in 1895). See Testimony of Rep. James W. Wadsworth, U.S. 

Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Organization of Congress, hearing on H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 

1st sess., March 19, 1945 (Washington: GPO, 1945), p. 94.

4 Jurisdiction over measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of the buildings and grounds of the 

Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, and the Botanic 

Gardens was given to the House Committee on Public Works.

5 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 825-

826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

6 Representatives who served on the Committee and subsequently were elected Speaker included John W. McCormack, 

Carl Albert, Newton Gingrich, Th omas S. Foley, and John A. 

Boehner. McCormack was a member of the Committee in the 

80th Congress, Albert in the 81st–82nd Congresses, Gingrich in 

the 96th–103rd Congresses, Foley in the 98th–99th Congresses, and 

Boehner in the 103rd–106th Congresses.

7 Future Democratic Floor Leaders who served on the Committee 

are John W. McCormack (80th Congress), Carl Albert (81st–83rd

Congresses), and Steny H. Hoyer (102nd–107th Congresses).

8 Future House Republican Floor Leaders who served on the Committee are Charles A. Halleck (82nd–86th Congresses) Th omas S. 

Foley (98th–99th Congress), and John A. Boehner (103rd–106th

Congresses).

9 Representatives John W. McCormack (80th Congress), Carl 

Albert (81st–83rd Congresses), John J. McFall (87th-88th Congresses), 

John W. Brademas (88th–96th Congresses), Th omas S. Foley (98th99th Congresses), William H. Gray, III (102nd Congress), and Steny 

H. Hoyer (102nd–107th Congresses) served on the Committee prior 

to their selection as House Democratic Whip.

10 Representatives Th omas S. Foley (98th-99th Congresses), William H. Gray, III (102nd Congress), Steny H. Hoyer (102nd–107th

Congresses), Victor H. Fazio (96th & 104th Congresses), J. Martin 

Frost (101st–103rd Congresses), and John B. Larson (108th Congress) 

served on the Committee prior to their selection as House Democratic Caucus Chair.

11 Representatives John B. Anderson (87th–88th Congresses), 

Samuel L. Devine (88th-96th Congresses), and John A. Boehner 

(103rd–106th Congresses) served on the Committee prior to their 

selection as House Republican Conference Chairman.

12 Representative Robert C. Byrd served on the Committee in the 

83th–85th Congress prior to his election as a Senator and selection 

as Senate Majority Leader.

PREDECESSOR PANELS 27

 I I . PR E DEC E S S OR PA N E L S

Th e Committee on House Administration enjoys the distinction of being able to boast a lineage extending back to the 

creation of the very fi rst standing committees in the House. 

At the time of its creation in 1946, the Committee inherited 

the legislative and administrative responsibilities of ten existing standing committees:1

• Committee on Accounts;

• Committee on Elections, No. 1;

• Committee on Elections, No. 2;

• Committee on Elections, No. 3; 

• Committee on the Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress; 

• Committee on Enrolled Bills;

• Committee on the Library;2

• Committee on Memorials; 

• Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers; and

• Committee on Printing.3

Two of these committees had themselves inherited the 

jurisdiction of committees abolished earlier. Th e Committee 

on Accounts inherited the duties of the Committee on Mileage (1837–1927)4

 and the Committee on Ventilation and 

Acoustics (1893–1911). Th e Committee on Printing inherited 

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Engraving.

Among the predecessors of the Committee on House 

Administration are some of the oldest and longest standing 

committees of the House. At the outset of the 1st Congress, 

after meeting on virtually a daily basis for the entire month 

of March, the House was fi nally able to muster a quorum 

on April 1, 1789, when two Members, James Schureman 

of New Jersey and Th omas Scott of Pennsylvania, took 

their seats.5 Once offi cially constituted, one of the fi rst 

orders of business was to adopt a set of parliamentary 

rules to guide the fl edgling body. Th ese rules established 

the fundamental practice that would govern the House to 

the present day.

Item seven of the rules package taken up April 13, 

1789, provided for the fi rst standing committee created by 

the House, the Committee on Elections, which was given 

the responsibility of approving the certifi cates of election of 

newly-elected Members. Th e Committee on Enrolled Bills 

was created soon thereafter, coincident with the passage of the 

fi rst piece of legislation, necessitating the administrative tasks 

associated with enrollment of the bill. Th is latter committee, 

although modifi ed several times, survived until 1947, when its 

functions were absorbed by the newly-established Committee 

on House Administration.

Th e following historical sketches of predecessor committees are not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, they are intended 

to provide detail suffi cient to portray the work and institutional context of the predecessor committees that were to be 

supplanted by the modern Committee on House Administration. Within this selective approach, an eff ort has been made 

to identify committee actions that had notable procedural 

implications, or that may be of particular interest to students 

of the history of Congress. Th e committee vignettes that follow are arranged chronologically based upon the dates each 

was designated as a standing committee of the House.

Committee on Elections

On April 13, 1789, the Committee on Elections, composed 

of seven Members elected by ballot, became the fi rst standing 

committee to be established by the House of Representatives. 

It was the duty of the seven-member Committee on Elections 

to examine and report upon the certifi cates of election, or other credentials of the members returned 

to serve in this House, and to take into their consideration all such matters as shall, or may come 

in question and be referred to them by the House, 
28 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

touching returns and elections, and to report their 

proceedings with their opinion thereupon to the 

House.6

Five days later, on April 18, 1789, the committee completed its initial mandate pursuant to this directive and presented a report accepting the credentials of 49 Members from 

nine states. Contested election cases from South Carolina 

and New Jersey remained pending, but were disposed of 

on April 29. Since there was no prior body of precedents to 

rely upon, the House instructed the committee to report a 

proper mode of investigation and decision.7 Th e committee’s 

report, outlining basic rules of evidence, was adopted by the 

House and embodied the fi rst formal instructions to guide 

the committee’s proceedings in such cases. A decade later, 

the rules for taking evidence in contested election cases were 

formalized in statute.8 Th e fi rst purely chronological compilation of contested election cases covering the 1st through 22nd

Congresses (1789–1833) was published in 1834, pursuant to 

a resolution reported by the Committee on Elections. In later 

Congresses the work of the committee was immeasurably 

facilitated by publication of comprehensive indexed digests 

of contested election cases.9

A 1911 treatise on government describes the work of the 

committee succinctly: 

Th e constitution makes each house the sole judge 

of the elections, returns, and qualifi cations of its 

members. Contested elections are referred to a 

committee on elections, which considers the evidence in each case and submits a report. Inasmuch 

as a majority of the members of the Committee 

on Elections are chosen from the dominant party, 

a contested election is quite likely to be decided 

on partisan lines. Persons may be excluded from 

membership if the election has been irregular or 

corrupt; if improper returns have been made; if the 

constitutional requirements are lacking; or for other 

reasons which in the opinion of the house render 

individuals unfi t to act as members.10

Cognizant of the suggestion of partisanship, in 1870 the 

House considered a resolution designed to insure impartiality:

Resolved: That from the nature of its duties the 

Committee on Elections of the House of Representatives is a judicial body, and in deciding contested election cases referred to such committee 

the members thereof should act according to all 

the rules of law, without partiality or prejudice, as 

fully as though under special oath in each particular 

case so decided.11

Th e resolution was ultimately rejected because it was 

deemed to cast imputation upon the Committee on Elections. Notwithstanding the failure of this resolution, the 

committee ultimately overcame the perception that they 

acted in a biased fashion. By 1926, a minority member of the 

Committee on Elections No. 1 was able to say, “In the eight 

years I have served on Elections Committees . . . I have never 

seen partisanship creep into that Committee but one time.”12

During the early years of Congress, it was diffi cult to 

determine the fi elds of jurisdiction of committees so precisely 

that there would be no overlapping. As a result there was often 

debate over the proper reference of bills on certain subjects. 

Even in the case of the Standing Committee on Elections, 

where ostensibly there was little room for doubt, there was on 

occasion some ambiguity about what kind of business properly lay within its sphere. For example, in the 2nd Congress 

(1791–1793), when a petition alleging certain irregularities 

in the election of Anthony Wayne of Georgia came up for 

discussion, Abraham Baldwin of Georgia moved to refer 

the matter to the Committee of Elections. Th e motion was 

immediately rejected on the grounds that the question “did 

not fall within their cognizance.” Th e petition was therefore 

laid upon the table for ten days, when it was referred to a 

select committee.13

In 1890, the actions of the Committee on Elections 

became the backdrop for a procedural drama whose outcome would have a profound impact on the development 

of legislative procedures of the House. Th at January, House 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 29

Speaker Th omas Brackett Reed of Maine devised and inaugurated a novel method of establishing a quorum, absent 

the requirement of demonstrating its presence through a 

roll call vote.

On January 29, 1890, when the contested election case 

of Charles B. Smith vs. James M. Jackson (West Virginia) was 

before the House, pursuant to a report of the Committee on 

Elections, a vote was demanded on whether the House would 

consider the matter.14 Speaker Reed announced the result 

of what would prove to be a historic vote: 161 yeas, 2 nays, 

and 165 not voting. (Nearly all the minority Democrats had 

absented themselves from the chamber in an eff ort to forestall 

action on the election case.) 

A no-quorum point of order was raised against the 

validity of the vote, but Speaker Reed, in a dramatic departure from all prior practice, directed the Clerk of the House 

to also record the names of those present but not voting, 

thereby satisfying the constitutional quorum requirements. Th e Speaker repeated this maneuver the following 

day in approving the House Journal, refusing to entertain 

any appeal of his decision, averring that the parliamentary 

question of the legitimacy of the no-roll-call quorum had 

been settled. At the same time, the Speaker announced his 

intention to disregard any motion or appeal that he deemed 

to be purely dilatory.

Th ese two procedural modifi cations were subsequently 

incorporated into the formal rules of the House on February 

14, 1890 (although not without considerable debate). George 

Galloway’s History of the House of Representatives explains 

the signifi cance of these two changes, and other changes 

embraced in the so-called “Reed Rules,” as follows: 

By empowering the Speaker to prevent obstruction, 

the reforms of 1890 went far to regularize House 

procedures, to expedite the conduct of its business, 

to enhance its dignity, and to fi x legislative responsibility upon the majority. Th e Reed Rules won lasting fame for their author in the annals of Congress 

and have proved generally satisfactory in practice.15

In the 1860s the committee took on new responsibilities occasioned by the hostilities of the Civil War. On June 

22, 1863, Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, Chairman of the 

Committee on Elections, reported a resolution proposing 

the appointment of a commission for the purpose of visiting 

rebellious states that had taken steps to re-establish their 

allegiance to the Union to ascertain whether those loyal to 

the Union “were suffi ciently strong to reorganize governments 

against the insurgents.”16

Another issue that occasionally drew the attention of the 

Committee on Elections was the question of polygamy. A case 

in point was that of Representative George Q. Cannon who 

was elected to represent Utah Territory in the U.S. Congress 

in 1873. He remained a congressional delegate until 1881, 

when his seat was contested by Allen G. Campbell. Th e basis 

of the challenge was the assertion that Cannon was an avowed 

polygamist, which made him unfi t to serve in the House. Th e 

issue was referred to the Committee on Elections; ultimately 

the House, on April 20, 1882, decided that neither contestant 

was entitled to the seat.

From 1789 through 1840, the 1st through the 15th Congresses, the average number of contested election cases was 

slightly less than four per Congress.17 Following the 34th Congress (1855–1857), however, the number of contested seats 

rose sporadically to a peak of 38 during the 54th Congress 

(1895–1897). In 1895, due to the increase in workload, the 

committee was split into three separate committees: Elections 

No. 1, Elections No. 2, and Elections No. 3. Decades prior 

to the offi cial designation of these distinct committees, the 

House had taken steps to deal with the committee’s increasing workload. In 1870, the House adopted the following 

amendment to the Rules:

The Committee on elections for the Forty-First 

Congress shall consist of fi fteen members; and each 

contested case may be assigned by the chairman to 

a special committee of three members thereof for 

their exclusive consideration, and such special committee shall report their decision in the case directly 

to the House.18
30 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

After 1935, the number of contested elections returned to 

an average of three per Congress, and in 1947 the three elections committees were abolished and their jurisdiction included 

in that of the new Committee on House Administration.

Committee on Accounts

Th e Committee on Accounts enjoys the distinction of being 

one of the earliest of the predecessor committees of the Committee on House Administration. During the 9th Congress, 

on December 27, 1803, the House adopted the following 

resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and Means:

Resolved: Th at a committee be appointed to consist 

of three members, to be styled “Th e Committee on 

Accounts,” whose duty it shall be to superintend 

and control the expenditures of the contingent fund 

of the House or Representatives, and to admit and 

set all accounts which may be charged thereon.19

During the 9th Congress, the Committee on Accounts 

was included as one of seven standing committees provided 

for by the Rules of the House adopted December 17, 1805. 

In addition to the duty of controlling the contingent fund 

of the House specifi ed in the 1803 resolution, the House 

Rules adopted in 1805 specifi ed another responsibility for the 

standing committee: “to audit the accounts of the members 

for their travel to and from the seat of Government, and their 

attendance in the House.”20

Of all the predecessor committees, the Committee on 

Accounts encompassed the widest range of jurisdictional 

responsibilities that now reside in the Committee on House 

Administration. Eight of the 16 paragraphs in today’s Rule X 

jurisdictional statement deal with matters that, prior to 1946, 

were handled by the Committee on Accounts. In addition to 

the duty of controlling the contingent fund of the House specifi ed in the 1803 resolution, the committee was responsible for 

the accountability of House offi cers; the procurement of rooms 

for the use of committees and for the Speaker; and recommending and authorizing the employment of stenographers, 

reporters of debates, janitors, and clerks and staff assistants 

for committees and Members. Moreover, the functions of the 

Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics were absorbed by 

the Committee on Accounts in 1911, and in 1927 it assumed 

the functions of the Committee on Mileage.

Th roughout its history, the Committee on Accounts was 

one of few committees that had leave to report at any time

matters within its jurisdiction. An index to the committee’s 

reports for the years 1815 to 1887 suggests the comprehensive 

range of duties and responsibilities within the committee’s 

purview:21 funeral expenses of deceased Members;22 selection 

of pages;23 assignment and payment of committee clerks;24

dismissal of the doorkeeper;25 a study of the expediency of 

lighting the Hall of the House by electricity;26 and auditing 

the accounts of the Select Committee on the Depression of 

Labor.27 Th e committee’s jurisdiction extended to all matters 

related to the facilities of the House. Accordingly, in 1916, 

the committee reported a resolution authorizing an electromechanical voting system for the House of Representatives;28

and, in 1922, a resolution for the fumigation of the House for 

the purpose of exterminating pests.29

On occasion, the committee also exercised punitive powers to enforce proper accounting practices in the House. At 

the close of each session of Congress, for example, the doorkeeper was required “to take an inventory of all the furniture, 

books, and other public property in the several committee 

and other rooms under his charge and report the same to the 

House.”30 Th e Committee on Accounts was then charged 

with determining the amount of the doorkeeper’s liability 

for missing articles.

As noted earlier, the Committee on Accounts had leave to 

report at any time on matters making expenditures from the 

contingent fund of the House. On occasion, however, there 

were attempts by other House committees to assume that prerogative. A case in point was a 1944 resolution to create a select 

committee to investigate campaign expenditures (H. Res. 551, 

78th Congress). Th e resolution came to the fl oor with an amendment reported by the Committee on Rules proposing to give the 

select committee authority over its own expenditures. A point 

of order was made that the Rules Committee had exceeded its 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 31

authority by off ering an amendment that was properly within 

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts. John Cochran 

of Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Accounts, argued 

persuasively for the point of order: 

The Committee on Accounts was set up by the 

House in 1803; long before the Rules Committee 

was ever heard of. Th is all-powerful Rules Committee takes it upon itself to assume jurisdiction 

over the contingent fund of the House. Not only 

do the Rules of the House place that jurisdiction in 

the Committee on Accounts, but your Committee 

on Accounts is subject to several statutes, specifi -

cally referring to the activities of the Committee on 

Accounts, and the contingent fund.31

Th e Speaker then sustained the point of order, citing 

earlier precedents that the subject of such an amendment was 

a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 

on Accounts.

Conversely, the Committee on Accounts was itself barred 

from reporting as privileged measures outside its jurisdiction. 

For example, an 1896 resolution reported by the committee was 

deemed not to be privileged because a portion of the resolution 

directed an investigation into importation and exportation of 

certain products. Sustaining a point of order against the resolution reiterated this principle: “the fact that they [the Committee 

on Accounts] have the privilege of reporting on expenditures 

out of the contingent fund does not give them the privilege of 

reporting on non-privileged matters.”32

Notably, along with the several committees on claims 

in the House, the Committee on Accounts had the authority 

to consider bills appropriating funds for the adjustment of 

private claims against the government.33 Th is authority was 

an exception to the general rule prohibiting consideration 

of items proposing appropriations in connection with bills 

reported by non-appropriating committees.34

Unlike any other committee of the House, the Committee on Accounts, by statute, was granted the authority to continue to act even after the fi nal adjournment of a Congress. 

Th e law provided that before the termination of the session, 

the Speaker was to appoint three Members-elect as a temporary committee on accounts to exercise functions relative to 

expenditures of the contingent fund until the organization 

of the next House.35

Accounting is sometimes viewed as a purely ministerial 

duty that does not provoke much controversy. But on occasion, 

the business of the Committee on Accounts was the backdrop 

for high drama on the fl oor of the House. In the 60th Congress 

(1907–1909), for example, during a fl oor speech, George Southwick of New York took exception to the committee’s failure to 

provide a salary increase for a House employee. Charles Bartlett 

of Georgia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Accounts, 

took these disparaging remarks to be directed at himself personally. Brandishing a knife, he attempted to attack Southwick. 

Bloodshed was avoided only after several Members, and the 

Sergeant-at-Arms carrying the mace, intervened.

On occasion, the committee was called upon to investigate 

sensitive political issues. Of particular historical interest was the 

case of Joseph Keifer of Ohio, who was Speaker of the House 

in the 47th Congress (1881–1883). At the end of the session, 

Speaker Keifer reportedly discharged employees of the House 

in order to put his nephew and others on the payroll. At the 

beginning of the 48th Congress (1883–1884), a three-member 

subcommittee of the Committee on Accounts was directed to 

investigate the charges against the former Speaker. According 

to press reports, the subcommittee had concluded that “the acts 

of the ex-Speaker . . . and the intimation of wrongdoing have 

been more than supported by the evidence.”36

Th e offi cial report of the subcommittee was delayed 

over disagreements as to the wording of the report. Th e 

House had changed hands in the 48th Congress, with Democrats gaining a majority. Th e language favored by the two 

majority Democrats criticized the former Speaker in severe 

terms, but was objected to by the Republican member of 

the subcommittee. In the end, compromise language was 

adopted, presenting the testimony received by the subcommittee, and denying compensation to the employees who 

had been improperly appointed.
32 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Committee on the Library

Th e standing Committee on the Library, established in 1806, 

was composed of the House members of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress. Its jurisdiction included all 

legislation relating to the Library of Congress, and statuary, 

pictures, or works of art on the Capitol grounds. Th e authority for its establishment came originally from a statute in 

1802 that prescribed that sums to be appropriated for books 

for the use of Congress should be “under the directions of a 

joint committee to consist of three members of the Senate and 

three members of the House of Representatives.”37

Interestingly, for a time in the late 1800s, the House 

appointed not three, but fi ve, Members to the committee. 

Th ere was some discussion as to whether House action could 

override the membership requirement in the statute, but ultimately the House agreed to abide by the three-Member limit.

Library of Congress Building. Historically, one of the 

committee’s most signifi cant accomplishments was its involvement in the successful eff ort to create a separate building outside of the Capitol to house the congressional library. In the 

latter half of the 19th century the collections of the congressional library had undergone geometric growth. In 1875, a report 

from the House Appropriations Committee said: 

The library has already become a thing whose 

growth is beyond control. So long as our country 

prospers and maintains its place among civilized 

and enlightened nations, its national library will 

grow under laws of accretion which it would scarce 

be possible, even were it desirable, to control.38

As early as 1873, Congress recognized that the burgeoning size of the congressional library located in the Capitol 

would require a comprehensive solution. In that year Congress authorized a design competition for a new library facility 

and appointed a commission to select a plan.39 A decade later, 

the Committee on the Library reported that the conditions 

of the collections had become intolerable:

Th e result is seen in the books stowed rank behind 

rank, so that their titles are concealed instead of 

exhibited, in alcoves overfl owing into every adjacent space and corridor, and in fl oors heaped high 

with books, pamphlets, musical compositions, and 

newspapers, from the ground fl oor of the Capitol 

to the attic.40

Initial design suggestions contemplated an expansion of 

the Capitol building itself. Based upon the projections of the 

Library’s rapid growth, the Architect of the Capitol estimated 

that it would not be long before “all the available space now 

occupied by the Senate, the House and the rotunda,” would 

be needed to store the collections.41

Attention then turned to selection of a suitable site for a 

separate library building. Several locations were considered and 

rejected. A site west of the capitol now occupied by the Botanic 

Gardens was disapproved when it was determined that the 

new library building could not be erected there because “the 

grounds were mainly composed of rather soft soil and were full 

of treacherous bogs.”42 Similarly, sites at Judiciary Square and at 

New York Avenue and North Capitol Street were deemed to be 

at such a distance as to be inconvenient to Members. 

In 1886, the Committee on the Library reported a bill 

(H.R. 1297, 49th Congress) recommending the construction of a new library building “immediately east from the 

Capitol and contiguous thereto,” fi nding that it combined 

“the requisites of vicinity to the Capitol, salubrity, elevation 

of site, and desirable surrounding, to a greater degree than 

any other.”43

In 1890, the committee reported a joint resolution to 

provide for “a suitable public ceremony” to accompany the 

laying of the Library’s cornerstone noting: “Th e magnitude of 

the Congressional Library and the general interest of the whole 

country in the same seem to justify the small expense that may 

be necessary to provide for such ceremonial celebration.”44

Th e decision to locate the Library outside the Capitol 

marked the beginning of a process to relocate other Capitol 

tenants: the Supreme Court and House and Senate committee offi ces in new facilities on land surrounding the Capitol. 

As such, it was the fi rst step toward creating the extended 

Capitol complex we know today.
PREDECESSOR PANELS 33

Jurisdictional Highlights. While the construction 

and administration of the Library of Congress may be the 

achievement most commonly identifi ed with the work of the 

committee, it was also involved in a range of other projects 

that had lasting national and historical signifi cance:

• In 1871, the committee recommended the purchase of 

a collection of 2000 portraits of prominent Americans 

off ered by photographer Mathew Brady;45

• In 1884, the committee considered a report from the 

Joint Commission on the Completion of the Washington Monument;46

• In 1886 the committee reported a bill, S. 2012 (49th

Congress), recommending an expenditure of $500,000 

for “Th e commemoration of the illustrious public service of Abraham Lincoln by a monument in the city of 

Washington, with appropriate statuary;”47

• In 1890, the committee considered a bill (S. 4087, 51st

Congress), “relative to the proposed purchase of the manuscript papers and correspondence of Th omas Jeff erson;”48

• In 1910, the committee reported a resolution providing 

for the appointment of “competent artists” to paint the 

portraits of former Speakers of the House;49 and

• In 1924 a bill was referred to the committee providing 

for the purchase of relics of Abraham Lincoln.50

Committee on Mileage

The Committee on Mileage was formally established on 

September 15, 1837. On that date the House adopted an 

amendment to the Rules of the House proposed by William 

Crosby Dawson of Georgia that authorized the Speaker “at 

the time of appointing the other committees each session, 

to add a Committee on Mileage whose duty it shall be to 

ascertain and report the distance to the Sergeant-at-Arms for 

which each member shall receive pay.”51

Since 1803, the responsibility for computing such reimbursement had resided in the Committee on Accounts. It 

would be returned to that same committee with the dissolution of the Committee on Mileage in 1927.

Th e authority for the payment of mileage compensation to Members of Congress dates to a statute enacted in 

the 1st Congress: “An Act for Allowing Compensation to the 

members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States, and to the Offi cers.”52 In addition to a salary 

for Members of six dollars for each day of the session, the law 

also provided for a payment of “six dollars for every twenty 

miles of the estimated distance, by the most usual road, from 

his place of residence to the seat of Congress.” In 1818, the 

mileage compensation was increased to “eight dollars for 

every twenty miles.”53

In the earliest days, the compensation due Members was 

certifi ed by the Speaker of the House. Beginning with an 

1805 House rules change, the newly-created Committee on 

Accounts was given responsibility “to audit the accounts of 

the members for their travel to and from the seat of Government, and their attendance in the House.” Th is responsibility 

was transferred to the new Committee on Mileage in 1837. 

While the job of ascertaining Member’s mileage allowance 

might appear to be a routine matter, the work of the committee was not without occasional memorable episodes and 

a few controversies that proved to have a lasting eff ect on the 

operations of the House.

Computation of Member’s mileage allowance was 

often the subject of controversy in early Congresses. Members complained that the allowances were inequitable and 

did not take into account the true expenses of Members 

who traveled from the most remote districts. Several solutions were suggested, with one Member from the West 

suggesting that the only way to standardize the allowance 

would be moving the Seat of Government to a location in 

the Midwest:

A motion was made by Mr. [Archibald] Yell [of 

Arkansas], to amend the amendment moved by 

Mr. [John Francis] Claiborne [of Mississippi], by 

adding thereto as follows: And that said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of 

providing by law for reducing the compensation 

allowed to members of Congress to six dollars per 

diem; and, also, into the expediency of providing 

by law for the removal of the seat of Government 

of the United States to some point on the Ohio 
34 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

or Mississippi River, on or before the fi rst day of 

January, 1840.54

Over time, other proposals were put forth to standardize the mileage formula and make it more equitable. In 1857, 

the Committee on Mileage expressed the opinion that each 

Member might be compensated based on the “legal distance” 

from the capitol of the state represented by the Member.55 In 

1860, the committee espoused a more precise determination 

of mileage, requesting the Postmaster General “to furnish the 

House . . . a statement of the distance by the usual mail route 

from the post offi ce of each [S]enator and [R]epresentative in 

Congress to the city of Washington.”56

Dissatisfaction with the equity of the existing formula 

for mileage reimbursements came to the forefront of congressional interest in the 30th Congress (1847–1848) when 

several events coalesced. Criticism over compensation of 

Members in Congress had been brewing since 1816, when 

Congress voted to increase congressional salary compensation from $6 per day to $1,500 per session.57 (Th e mileage 

allowance of $6 for each 20 miles traveled was a separate 

payment and was unaff ected by the 1816 law.) Public outrage over the Compensation Act of 1816 resulted in its repeal 

less than a year later.58 Richard Johnson of Kentucky, who 

proposed the resolution to increase Member’s salaries, also 

led the repeal eff ort noting that the pay raise had “excited 

more discontent” than any other “measure of the Government, from its existence.”59

Although the mileage computation was unaff ected, the 

residual eff ects of the 1816 act put all forms of congressional 

compensation under closer examination. Th is heightened 

scrutiny peaked in the 30th Congress with the election of 

Horace Greeley of New York. Greeley, the founder and editor 

of the New York Tribune, served only three months, having 

been elected to fi ll the vacancy caused by the unseating of 

David Johnson, but he made the most of his brief tenure.

Soon after his arrival in the House, Greeley obtained, 

and had a reporter transcribe, the schedules for mileage 

compensation. He then computed how much could be saved 

if Members computed their mileage by the most direct postroute, instead of by the “most usual road” as specifi ed in the 

statute. (Changes in transportation practices occasioned by 

the expansion of rail and steamboat routes allowed Members to travel more cheaply, and more quickly, but by more 

circuitous routes). As a result, Greeley concluded that some 

Members “charged and received twice as much for traveling 

fi ve days in a sumptuous cabin, replete with every luxury, 

as their fathers paid for roughing it over the mountains in 

fi fteen to twenty days at a greater cost.”60

Greeley estimated that reform of the mileage computation formula would result in a $50,000 annual savings to the 

government, and arranged for his fi ndings to be published 

in the New York Tribune.

61 Th e expose caused an immediate 

uproar in the halls of Congress. Within days of the article’s 

publication, the House approved a resolution directing the 

Committee on Mileage to undertake an inquiry. Th e committee was charged with two tasks: determining whether any 

Member had drawn mileage compensation in excess of what 

they were entitled to by law; and secondly, deciding whether 

the facts alleged in the Tribune article amounted to “an allegation of fraud against most of the Members of the House.”62

It was also rumored that signatures were being gathered for 

a possible expulsion proceeding against Greeley himself.63

On January 12, 1849, the committee concluded in its 

report, based on a strict interpretation of the statute, that 

there was not a “single instance in which the distance they 

reported was not warranted by the laws and the facts as represented.”64 As to the second matter, the allegations of fraud in 

the Tribune article, the committee concluded that they were 

“so palpably false that it cannot possibly injure anyone,” and 

declined to recommend any further action.

Over its history, the committee was involved in a number of other controversies regarding mileage compensation. In 

1877, the committee considered a bill (H.R. 650, 61st Congress), 

“Providing for the payment of mileage to Members of Congress 

for attendance upon extra or called sessions of Congress.” Th e 

committee reported the bill with a recommendation that “it do 

not pass,” noting that there was no law in force entitling Members to mileage compensation for attendance at such sessions.65
PREDECESSOR PANELS 35

Another issue that occasionally arose was the question 

of compensation to Members who were unsuccessful parties 

to contested election cases. One of the most notable examples 

was the case of Brigham H. Roberts, a representative-elect 

from Utah. On January 25, 1900, Roberts, a polygamist, was 

denied a House seat by a vote of 268 to 50.66 Subsequently, 

Roberts submitted a claim to the Committee on Mileage for 

reimbursement for travel expenses from Utah to Washington, 

D.C. A vote was taken in committee and the petition was 

denied on a tie vote, one member being absent.67

Assignments to the Committee. Unlike today, when 

committees are routinely appointed promptly at the beginning of each Congress pursuant to resolution, in the 19th 

century, the Speaker named Members to committees, and 

often delayed making appointments to many committees until 

later in the session.68 By virtue of its responsibility to make 

a prompt accounting of mileage reimbursements for newlyelected Members, the Committee on Mileage was invariably 

one of the fi rst committees to be impaneled. As such, on occasion, the appointment of Members to this committee served as 

a bellwether of the Speaker’s intentions regarding maintaining 

the continuity of membership on other committees from one 

Congress to the next.

On December 9, 1887, the Washington Post reported 

that the Members appointed to the Mileage Committee at 

the outset of the 50th Congress (1887–1889) were identical 

with the previous Congress (as far as the newly elected House 

would permit), concluding: 

The Mileage Committee is a small straw, but it 

was taken as an indication yesterday by speculative 

people that the Speaker (John Carlisle), did not 

intend, when it could well be avoided, to disturb 

present committee membership.

On another occasion, the selection of members of the 

Mileage Committee had an even greater import. In 1909, 

during the fi rst session of the 61st Congress (1909–1911), 

the Speaker’s unfettered authority to appoint Members to 

committees became a matter of partisan controversy. In an 

episode that foreshadowed the 1910 revolt against Speaker 

Joseph G. Cannon, that would, in the following, Congress 

prompt the House to strip the Speaker of this and other prerogatives, the minority Democrats had determined in caucus 

not to accept any committee appointments that had not 

been sanctioned by Minority Leader James “Champ” Clark. 

Consequently, when Speaker Cannon announced appointments to the Mileage Committee, two Democrats, Charles 

Bartlett of Georgia and Ollie James of Kentucky, refused to 

serve. In an amusing footnote to these proceedings, Speaker 

Cannon then appointed Elijah Lewis of Georgia as a minority 

member of the committee, apparently unaware that Lewis 

had lost his reelection bid. Bartlett drew a laugh from the 

Chamber when he rose and informed the Speaker that the 

Member just appointed to the committee was no longer a 

Member of the House.69

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the Mileage Committee was one of several committees with limited workload 

that at various times attracted the attention of frugal Members bent on economizing the operational overhead of the 

House. Long before the work of the Mileage Committee was 

absorbed by the Committee on Accounts, there were calls 

for its abolition, or at the very least, an elimination of a paid 

committee clerk. In 1882, Th omas R. Cobb, who chaired 

the committee during the 45th–46th Congresses (1875–1879), 

admitted that the committee had only met twice during his 

four-year tenure. In 1919, one commentator noted that the 

Committee on Mileage was among those inactive committees 

maintained year after year because the chairmanship of the 

committee carried with it “certain perquisites, including an 

offi ce and stenographic service.”70

Th e absorption of the Committee on Mileage, and its 

duties, into the Committee on Accounts was accomplished 

with little fanfare. In presenting the rules package for the 

70th Congress (1927–1929), Bertrand Snell of New York, 

Chairman of the House Rules Committee, noted that the 

16 committees being eliminated, had “practically no work 

to do in connection with the work of the House,” and proposed “to change the work done by the Mileage Committee 
36 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

to the Committee on Accounts,”71 where it remained until 

the establishment of the Committee on House Administration in 1947.

Committee on Engraving and the Committee 

on Printing 

Th e Committee on Engraving enjoyed a brief life span of only 

15 years. Established as a standing committee on March 16, 

1844 (H. J. Res. 597, 28th Congress), it was a continuation of 

a select committee established earlier on January 11, 1844. 

Although serving what some would consider a minor role in 

the legislative process, the Committee on Engraving was created to respond to the contingencies of the day. In the words 

of one commentator: 

Th e creation of a standing committee has generally been linked with some important historical 

occurrence. . . . Engraving came to be a permanent 

member of the committee family when the Mexican War and the stirring argosies of ‘49 called for 

more extensive service of cartographers.72

Th e select committee was charged with investigating 

alleged abuses in the engraving, lithographing, and printing of maps ordered in the 26th through 27th Congresses 

(1839–1843). Th e inquiry uncovered substantial overcharges 

by “men who subsist and fatten on the national treasury.”73

Based upon the fi ndings of the select committee, the 

standing Committee on Engraving was empowered to 

oversee the publication of maps, charts and drawings. Th e 

committee was to determine which documents were to be 

printed, and the manner in which they should be executed. 

Samuel Simon of Connecticut, who introduced the resolution creating the committee, was its fi rst chairman, although 

he served only a single term in Congress. Th roughout its 

short history the committee never varied in size, always 

consisting of three members.

On March 23, 1844, the fi rst items referred to the committee included charts illustrating the weather during 1843, 

a map of Florida depicting the Indians remaining in the 

territories, drawings relating to weights and measures for 

a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and a map of the 

swamp lands near New Madrid, Missouri.74

Nearly coincident with the creation of the Committee 

on Engraving was the establishment of the Joint Committee 

on Printing in 1846. Th e language establishing the committee’s mandate was contained in a statute which also provided 

generally for matters relating to congressional printing.75 An 

early example of the sort of resolutions referred to the new 

committee was an 1848 resolution to authorize the printing of 

10,000 copies of the reports and maps relating to the expedition of Captain James Cook.76

Th e same day that this resolution was adopted an amendment to the joint rules of the House and Senate was approved 

granting the Committee on Printing privilege to report at 

any time. Previously, on several occasions, the scope of the 

committee’s authority to submit privileged reports had been 

called into question. Th e committee was empowered to report 

privileged resolutions dealing with questions of printing for 

either the House or for both houses of Congress. In 1893, a 

resolution was presented dealing not only with printing for 

the chambers, but also with the revision of laws on the subject 

of printing in general. Th e chair ruled that such a resolution 

was not privileged.77

Th e committee on occasion exercised jurisdiction over 

legislative issues beyond the immediate scope of chamber 

printing. On January 31, 1892, for example, the committee considered a resolution, H. Res. 69 (52nd Congress), to 

authorize the public printer to reimburse employees of the 

Government Printing Offi ce for pay that had been deducted 

as a result of the government closure for the funeral services 

for President James Garfi eld. Similarly, on July 28, 1882, the 

committee reported a bill, H.R. 6844 (47th Congress), to fi x 

the pay of government printers and bookbinders.

Of particular historical interest is a 1935 resolution 

introduced by Th omas O’Malley of Wisconsin, directing 

the Sergeant-at-Arms “to have printed for the occupants of 

the galleries of the House . . . a pamphlet explaining how the 

House conducts its business.”78 Th is action was the genesis of 

the document that has become ubiquitous as a public guide 

to the legislative process, How Our Laws Are Made. 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 37

As with other standing committees, the offi cial designation in 1846 of the Committee on Printing was preceded by 

the establishment of a temporary select committee during several earlier Congresses. In 1828, a Select Committee on Printing was charged with conducting an inquiry into the prices 

of printing for Congress.79 As early as 1830, proposals were 

put forward to make the Committee on Printing a standing 

committee of the House. One such resolution was reported 

on March 30, 1830 from the Committee on Retrenchment: 

Resolved, Th at the following be added to the standing rules of the House: A Committee on Printing 

shall be appointed at the commencement of each 

session; and it shall be the duty of such committee 

to examine all. Executive reports, communications, 

and documents, and reports from any of the Executive Departments, or the Bureaus thereof—also, the 

reports of committees and papers presented to the 

House, when an extra number is proposed to be 

printed, and report, forthwith, upon the propriety 

of printing such extra number;—and it shall not 

be in order to print more than the usual number 

of such paper or document, until the report of the 

Committee on Printing, respecting it, be presented 

to the House.80

In 1840, a Select Committee on Printing was directed 

by resolution of the House to report on the question of 

separating the patronage of government printing from the 

political process.81 Th e eff ort to make the committee permanent was renewed in the 27th Congress (1841–1843) 

when a select committee reported a resolution on March 5, 

1842 providing:

Resolved, That henceforth it shall be a standing 

rule of the House, that a committee be appointed, 

consisting of three members, to be denominated 

“the Committee on Printing,” whose duty it shall 

be to examine all papers and documents, of every 

description whatever, which it may be proposed to 

have printed.82

Despite its joint status, the House members on the committee functioned autonomously in some respects, “receiving 

resolutions and bills which were referred to it and reporting 

them by its own authority, without the concurrent action of 

the Senate branch.”83 Th e Joint Committee on Printing has 

continued, since its establishment in 1846, until the present 

day (although there have occasionally been eff orts to abolish 

it).84 Since 1947, House members of the Joint Committee have 

been selected from the Committee on House Administration.

Committee on Enrolled Bills

There is understandably some ambiguity in fixing a precise date for the establishment of the House Committee 

on Enrolled Bills. Th e committee that was absorbed by the 

Committee on House Administration in 1947 had existed 

as a House committee since 1876, when the joint rules of 

the House and Senate were allowed to lapse, eff ectively dissolving the Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills, made up of 

Members from both chambers, which had existed since the 

1st Congress.

The original Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills was 

established on July 27, 1789, as a component of the joint rules 

approved on that day. As adopted by the House, these rules 

authorized the creation of a joint committee to be composed 

of one Senator and two Representatives who were named a 

few days later. For a brief period, prior to the creation of this 

permanent committee, the House, jointly with the Senate, 

appointed individual ad hoc committees for enrolling each 

bill as it was approved. Th e fi rst reference to this short-lived 

practice appears in the House Journal entry of May 19, 1789:

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Otis, their Secretary: Mr. Speaker: Th e Senate have appointed a 

committee, to join a committee on the part of this 

House, to present to the President of the United 

States, the bill, entitled “An act to regulate the time 

and manner of administering certain oaths,” after 

the same shall be duly engrossed, examined, and 

signed by the Speaker of this House, and the President of the Senate. And then he withdrew. Ordered, 

Th at Mr. Partridge and Mr. Floyd be appointed a 
38 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

committee on the part of this House, for the purpose expressed in the message from the Senate.85

As evidenced by the above referenced passage, in early 

Congresses the members of the committee themselves 

presented the enrolled bill to the President. By the closing 

decades of the 19th century, however, this practice had been 

largely replaced by a less formal method as described in a 

Washington Post article of 1888:

Formerly there was a great deal of formality about 

presenting a bill to the President for his approval or 

rejection. A committee of the House or Senate visited 

the White House and presented the bill with great 

ceremony. But now the Clerk of the Committee on 

Enrolled Bills takes the bills up to the White House 

in a bunch and delivers them to Col. Lamont, Mr. 

Pruden, or Mr. Hendley. Th at is all.86

Notwithstanding these new procedures, for legislation 

of particular import, the committee sometimes reverted to 

the earlier practice. In 1903, for example, Frank C. Wachter 

of Maryland, Chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills, 

accompanied by Amos Allen of Maine, personally delivered 

the enrolled copy of the free-coal bill to President Th eodore 

Roosevelt who immediately signed the legislation. Th e necessity for quick action on the bill was explained in a Washington 

Post article:

Representative Allen who noted the time (of the 

bill signing) 1:15 p.m., immediately telegraphed the 

fact to Portland, Me., where it was understood some 

ships heavily laden with English coal, were waiting 

to move up to the dock. If they had entered with 

their cargo before the bill was signed, they would 

have been required, under interpretations of the 

courts, to pay full duty, whereas, if they entered 

after 1:15 p.m. they would have to pay no duty.87

On another occasion, at the outset of World War II, 

Chairman Michael J. Kirwan of Ohio made a “crosstown 

dash in a taxicab with the British aid bill under his arm” 

enabling the President to sign it soon after congressional 

action was completed.88

From 1876, until the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946, the committee continued to be referred to as a joint committee, although in fact, it operated as two separate committees, with the House component responsible for the enrollment 

of bills originating in the House. Th e joint rules set out, in some 

detail, specifi c procedures to be followed for the appointment 

of the committee and for the execution of its work:

Resolved, Th at it is the opinion of this committee, 

that the following ought to be established joint 

rules between the two Houses, to wit: Th at while 

bills are on their passage between the two Houses, 

they shall be on paper, and under the signature of 

the Secretary or Clerk of each House, respectively. 

After a bill shall have passed both Houses, it shall 

be duly enrolled on parchment, by the Clerk of the 

House of Representatives, or the Secretary of the 

Senate, as the bill may have originated in the one 

or the other House, before it shall be presented to 

the President of the United States. When bills are 

enrolled, they shall be examined by a joint committee of one from the Senate, and two from the House 

of Representatives, appointed as a standing committee for that purpose, who shall carefully compare 

the enrollment with the engrossed bills, as passed 

in the two Houses, and, correcting any errors that 

may be discovered in the enrolled bills, make their 

report forthwith to the respective Houses. After 

examination and report each bill shall be signed in 

the respective Houses, fi rst by the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives, and then by the President of the Senate. After a bill shall have thus been 

signed in each House, it shall be presented by the 

said committee to the President of the United States 

for his approbation, it being fi rst endorsed on the 

back of the roll, certifying in which House the same 

originated, which endorsement shall be signed by 

the Secretary or Clerk, as the case may be, of the 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 39

House in which the same did originate, and shall 

be entered on the Journals of each House. Th e said 

committee shall report the day of presentation to 

the President, which time shall also be carefully 

entered on the Journal of each House.89

Although after 1876 the joint rules no longer continued 

to offi cially govern, the practice of enrollment continued 

under the rules of each chamber with only two minor changes 

prior to 1947. Enrolled bills were printed on paper rather than 

being handwritten on parchment, and the designated offi cers 

were no longer required to sign enrollments in open session. 

Each of these changes has its own particular history.

In 1874, an investigation into the propriety of enrolling 

bills by hand was precipitated by the inadvertent interpolation 

of a letter and a comma into a tariff bill during enrollment 

that had unintended impact on the statute’s interpretation. 

An amendment off ered by Senator Abijah Gilbert of Florida 

proposed to add to the duty free list “fruit plants, tropical and 

semi-tropical.” When enrolled, the insertion of a “s” and a 

comma made the language far more expansive: “fruits, plants, 

tropical and semi-tropical.” In the words of Senator John 

Sherman of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, 

“Th is little slip of the pen, occurring somewhere in the course 

of engrossing or enrolling, has led to great diffi culty.”90

Partly in response to this episode, on February 9, 1874, 

James A. Garfi eld of Ohio (later elected President), introduced the following resolution which was agreed to:

Resolved, Th at the Committee on Enrolled Bills be 

directed to inquire into the expediency of repealing 

the law that requires the statutes of the United States to 

be enrolled on parchment, and to devise some method 

by which the text of the laws be better preserved from 

interpolations and changes, and that the Committee 

have leave to report by bill or otherwise.91

A similar resolution, introduced in the Senate by Senator Charles 

Sumner of Massachusetts was agreed to on February 20, 1874.92

In the earliest Congresses, the technical task of enrollment was actually performed by the Speaker of the House 

and the President pro tempore of the Senate. In later years, 

the ever-increasing volume of legislation necessitated that 

the leadership rely on a clerical staff to check the accuracy 

of enrollments. Congress passed only 118 bills in the 1st

Congress, but in later years the volume of bills to be processed, particularly at the end of a session, burgeoned to an 

unmanageable number.

Th e strain on enrolling clerks increased exponentially 

at the rush to adjournment. On the day before adjournment 

in 1888, 83 private pension bills that had passed both houses 

were enrolled and delivered to the White House. Th e ability 

of the enrolling clerks to discharge these considerable duties 

free from error frequently elicited expressions of praise from 

the Members. In 1892, L.C. McPherson received a written 

commendation from offi cials at the Department of State and 

the Clerk of the House attesting to the “absolute freedom from 

error in the enrolled bills which passed through his hands.”93

On occasion, in order to meet end of session deadlines, 

the House adopted special contingency plans. In 1899, the 

House passed a resolution authorizing the temporary hire 

of two bicycle messengers for the sole purpose of making 

deliveries of enrolled bills between the enrolling room and 

the Government Printing Offi ce.94 Some relief to the endof-session hysteria was provided by a change in practice that 

allowed enrollment not only during a period of legislative 

session but even after Congress had adjourned sine die.

It is worth noting that in 1812 the Committee on Enrolled 

Bills was the fi rst standing committee to be granted leave to 

report at any time on matters within its jurisdiction. Th e privilege carried with it the right of immediate consideration by 

the House. Th is procedural prerogative was later granted to 

other committees as well as a way of “expediting the most 

important matters of business.”95 Today, the Committee on 

House Administration is one of only fi ve House committees 

that continue to enjoy the privilege to report at any time.96

Since 1946, the Joint Committee on Enrolled bills has 

been composed of three members of the Committee on 

House Administration and three Members from the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration.
40 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Committee On Disposition of Executive Papers

Th e Committee on the Disposition of Executive Papers was 

established by law on February 16, 1889. Th e act provided 

that whenever an executive department accumulated fi les 

or papers that were not needed for the transaction of current business and possessed no permanent value or historical 

interest, the head of the agency would submit a report to 

Congress with a concise statement of the character and condition of such papers. Th e presiding offi cer of the Senate and the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives would, upon receipt 

of the report, each appoint two Members to sit on a joint committee to examine the reports and papers and report on them. 

If the report of the joint committee agreed that the papers 

were useless, the head of the department would be ordered 

to sell them as wastepaper or otherwise dispose of them.97

Approval of this statutory provision encountered some 

procedural diffi culty when it was discovered that there had 

been a minor clerical error during the enrollment of the bill S. 

2305. Th e word “Senator” had been inserted where the plural 

“Senators” should have appeared. Th e error was addressed by 

passage of a subsequent resolution directing the Committee 

on Enrolled Bills to make the necessary corrections. (Th is sort 

of error was not uncommon during the early years of Congress. For other examples, see the entry for the Committee on 

Enrolled Bills.)98

As the disposition process became institutionalized, a 

Select Committee on the Disposition of (Useless) Executive 

Papers was regularly appointed at the beginning of each Congress. In 1911 it was recognized as a standing committee in the 

revised Rules of the House.99 Under the 1934 National Archives 

Act, the Archivist of the United States was given responsibility 

for governmental records and archives and was required to submit the disposition lists formerly submitted by the agencies.100

Th e committee occasionally held hearings and reported bills 

relating to governmental recordkeeping and archives.

Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics

For those unfamiliar with the history of the House, the 

notion that there once existed a standing committee devoted 

solely to the subject of ventilation and acoustics may seem 

improbable. At the time, however, the work of the committee was a far more compelling topic than might be supposed 

from the perspective of observers who take modern heating 

and air conditioning for granted. In the 19th century, the 

conditions in the House chamber were perceived as not only 

uncomfortable, but dangerously unhealthy. In a 1895 report 

by the Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, Chairman 

George Washington Shell of South Carolina described the 

situation in no uncertain terms:

We see members carried away from here corpses 

after very short illnesses, and we have been led 

to suppose that this is occasioned largely by the 

unhealthy conditions of the Hall itself. 101

Th e standing committee was established in 1893, but 

before its establishment there were numerous select committees created to study the problem of ventilation in the House 

chamber, and suggest solutions.102 Legislative actions relating 

to concerns about the quality of air in the chambers of the 

House occurred as early as 1802, when the following motion 

was submitted:

Resolved, Th at the Speaker of this House cause to be 

opened a ventilator or ventilators in the chamber of 

the House of Representatives, at some convenient 

place or places therein; and that the expense thereof 

be discharged out of the moneys appropriated for 

defraying the contingent expenses of this House. 103

Unhealthy conditions were identifi ed soon after the new 

House chamber was fi rst occupied in 1857. On May 10, 1864, 

the House agreed to a concurrent resolution from the Senate 

for the appointment of a joint select committee to be responsible for of the heating and ventilation of the Senate Chamber 

and the Hall of the House. Representatives Justin Morrill of 

Vermont, Nathaniel Smithers of Delaware, and James English 

of Connecticut were appointed as the House members.

During the succeeding Congress, another joint committee was appointed. Th e membership of the committee 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 41

suggested the seriousness with which the House viewed the 

air-quality problem. It included such luminaries as Th addeus 

Stevens of Pennsylvania and Henry Dawes of Massachusetts. 

Representative Stevens chaired the Committee on Ways and 

Means (37th–38th Congresses, 1861–1865), the Committee on 

Appropriations (39th–40th Congresses, 1865–1869), and was 

designated in 1868 to conduct the impeachment proceedings 

against President Andrew Johnson. Representative Dawes 

chaired the Committee on Elections (37th–40th Congresses, 

1861–1869), the Committee on Appropriations (41st Congress, 1869–1871), and the Committee on Ways and Means 

(42nd–43rd Congresses, 1871–1875).

In 1866, Abner Harding of Illinois said that he had been 

nearly perishing for want of fresh air and that the chamber 

reminded him of the black hole of Calcutta.104 In 1867 a 

resolution was introduced, which read:

Whereas the confi ned and poisonous air in the hall and 

corridors of the representative wing of the Capitol has caused 

much sickness and even several deaths among the members 

of this house, and under present arrangements must continue 

in a poisonous condition:

Resolved, Th at a committee of three be appointed 

to examine at once and report to this house by 

what means a suffi cient supply of pure air may be 

obtained for said hall; and that said committee be 

empowered to use the present modes of ventilation 

to the best advantage for the present, and that they 

report by bill or otherwise.105

Although investigations regarding ventilation were often 

limited to each individual chamber, in 1870, the House 

joined with the Senate to pass legislation appropriating the 

sum of $3,000 “for the purpose of making experiments in the 

ventilation of the halls of the capitol.”106 Another 1870 statute provided for an appropriation of $15,000 for additional 

“glass panels, fl ues, doors, and apparatus for improving the 

lighting and ventilating of said hall.”107 Unfortunately, these 

expenditures proved to be insuffi cient. In the very next session 

of Congress an additional appropriation was approved that 

provided for “additional fans for the exhaustion of vitiated 

air from the hall.”108

To solve the problem, the committee considered a parade 

of patented technological solutions, including Professor R.B. 

Williamson’s 1878 invention for cooling and purifying air. In 

1879, the committee visited Alexandria, Virginia, to inspect 

the patent refrigerating machine of Th omas Cook of Philadelphia, which was in successful operation in Portner’s Brewery. 

A proposition had been made to place one of Cook’s refrigeration machines in the basement of the House to “cool the 

atmosphere.”109 Interestingly, during one period, there was 

a debate among two opposing schools of thought as to the 

appropriate remedial course to improving ventilation in the 

Chamber. One camp contended “a downward system of 

ventilation is preferable to the one now in vogue, viz.: the 

upward system.”110

Other less technological solutions to the air quality problem were also put forward. In 1879, the committee suggested: 

“Th row the chamber open as soon as the House adjourns or 

recesses, and keep all the doors and windows around the hall 

open until the foul air has had an opportunity to escape.”111

In 1894, the committee recommended that: “the machinery 

for ventilation be run the full 24 hours, in order that members 

may have pure air to breathe at the beginning of each daily 

session.”112 For that purpose, they recommended an appropriation of $700 a month be made available immediately.

Over the years, the source of the foul air in the chamber 

was ascribed to a host of causes: “Among other things, the 

committee has discovered that the apertures in the floor 

beneath the desks, intended to supply fresh air to the hall 

are the accumulators of apple parings, cigar butts, crumbs of 

bread, and every description of refuse through which all the 

air admitted to the House is forced to pass.”113 In 1895, Chairman George Washington Shell of South Carolina announced 

that the committee had concluded that leaking gas from the 

chamber’s light fi xtures was a likely culprit.114 But perhaps 

the most unlikely cause was the committee’s assertion that 

foul air in the chamber was caused by admitting to the public 

gallery “persons unclean in their person and dress.”115
42 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Th e ultimate solution to the problem of ventilation in the 

House would not be realized until the advent of “a new and 

wondrous improvement in the science of ventilation called 

“air conditioning.”116 Th e legislative appropriation bill for 

FY1929 included $323,000 “for the purchase and installation 

for the Senate Chamber and the Hall of the House of Representatives of complete improved ventilation, dehumidifying 

air conditioning apparatus.”117 Th e system in the House was 

completed in December 1928, and in the Senate the following 

year. In an amusing footnote to these events, it was necessary 

to print notices for the Members of Congress who were unaccustomed to cool, dry air in the summertime, to assure them 

that there was nothing to worry about when experiencing an 

air-conditioned room for the fi rst time.

Chamber Acoustics. As the committee’s name suggests, 

the acoustic properties in the chamber were also a frequent 

topic of the committee’s investigations. As one commentator 

noted, “Th e acoustic properties of the chamber are not good.” 

It has been said that “speaking in the House is like trying 

to address the people in the Broadway omnibuses from the 

curbstone in front of the Astor House.”118

In 1891, the Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics 

reported on enlargement of the Old Hall of the House (now 

Statuary Hall)119 and, in 1899, on a plan for the remodeling 

of the hall and rearranging its seats. In the Old Hall of the 

House, the acoustics were a source of constant trouble because 

of the echoes, and several investigations were made.120 One 

report suggested ways to improve acoustics, recommending 

a reduction in the size of the hall, the removal of desks and 

the rearrangement of the seats.

Today, the mere mention of the name of the Committee 

on Ventilation and Acoustics is apt to prompt some mildly 

derisive response. During its tenure, the committee enjoyed 

a greater degree of respect, but was nonetheless the target of 

the occasional verbal barb. In the latter years of its existence, 

assignment to the committee was sometimes perceived as less 

than desirable. One commentator describes Speaker Joseph 

G. Cannon’s appointment of freshman Irvine Lenroot of 

Wisconsin to the committee as follows: “He put Lenroot to 

one side by assigning him to the inane Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics.”121

Th e committee was later described as one of those committees appointed for the sole “purpose of giving holes for Uncle 

Joe (Speaker Joseph Cannon) to ‘put his pegs in.’”122 In 1908, 

George Lindsay of New York resigned from the Committee 

on Ventilation and Acoustics shortly after being appointed, 

having discovered that the committee seldom, if ever, met and 

was useful only in providing rooms for the chairman’s use.123

Th e following year, Minority Leader Champ Clark of Missouri 

echoed this sentiment, noting sarcastically, “I would not care 

a baubee if he [Speaker Cannon] put me at the tail end of the 

Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics.”124

Jurisdictional Highlights. In the 42nd Congress (1871–

1873) it was decided by House Speaker James G. Blaine of 

Maine that all matters relating to the arrangement of the Hall 

and the convenience of Members were to be considered and 

treated as matters of privilege.125 Th is precedent extended 

beyond the termination of the Committee on Ventilation and 

Acoustics. In 1923, a resolution to inquire into the effi cacy 

of installing a “public address or voice amplifying system” in 

the Hall of the House was deemed to be privileged. Interestingly, an experimental system was installed pursuant to this 

resolution, but after a brief trial it was removed.126

In the 49th Congress (1885–1887), John Swinburne of 

New York, a minority member of the committee, introduced 

a resolution to extend the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics to all buildings in the District of Columbia, but no action was taken on his proposal.127

Toward the end of its existence the committee considered legislation not directly related to its primary jurisdiction. 

One notable example was a proposal to fund the De Bausset 

vacuum airship. Th e invention was based on the theory that 

by pumping the air out of a steel cylinder, the vacuum created 

would produce a lighter-than-air craft that could transport 

passengers and cargo. At the time it was hailed as the next 

revolution in transportation.128

Th roughout most of its history the committee was composed of seven members: four majority and three minority, 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 43

with the exception of the 59th–60th Congresses (1905–1909), 

when it consisted of six members equally divided. Notably, 

in the 54th–56th Congresses (1895–1901), the minority wing 

of the committee included, in addition to two Democrats, 

members of the third party Populist Party—Harry Skinner 

of North Carolina (54th–55th Congresses) and John Atwater 

of North Carolina (56th Congress).

Committee on the Election of the President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress

The Committee on the Election of the President, Vice 

President, and Representatives in Congress was established 

in 1893, during the fi rst session of the 53rd Congress.129

Th e origin of the committee, however, dates to nearly two 

decades earlier, when, in 1876, the House established a 

Select Committee on Counting the Votes for President 

and Vice President.130 In 1887, the select committee was 

renamed the Committee on the Election of the President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, a name 

that it would retain when transformed into a standing committee in 1893.131

As was the practice in the years prior to the explicit jurisdictional statements included in the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, jurisdiction of the committee was somewhat 

ambiguous, and only stated redundantly by the name of 

the committee itself. For example, House Rules for the 79th

Congress (1945–1946) directed that legislation on the subject 

of the election of the President, the Vice President and Representative in Congress, be referred to the Committee on the 

Election of the President, Vice President and Representatives 

in Congress.”132

Notwithstanding this terse statement, over its 53-year 

history, the committee processed an interesting variety of 

legislation on subjects related to several aspects of elections. 

A wide range of legislation concerning the election of the offi -

cials named in the committee’s title was referred to the committee. Th ese included proposed changes to the Constitution 

aff ecting terms of offi ce of the President, the Vice President, 

and Members of Congress, as well as bills to provide for the 

method of succession for the President and the Vice President, 

and the meeting times of Congress.

Jurisdictional Highlights. Measures aff ecting national 

election laws were also within the province of the committee. In 1912, nearly a century before the adoption of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the committee 

reported a bill providing for the disclosure of contributions 

and expenditures for the purpose of infl uencing or securing 

the nomination of candidates for the offi ces of President and 

Vice President.133

Constitutional amendments are normally the province 

of the Committee on the Judiciary. On several occasions, 

however, the Committee on the Election of the President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress reported 

joint resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of United States Senators.

On other occasions the committee reported joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution prohibiting 

polygamy and disqualifying polygamists from election to 

Congress. In 1899, the committee submitted a report on 

whether the House would have to seat a Member-elect who 

was a polygamist. Th e committee concluded that the Constitution did not allow the House to exclude a Member-elect 

who met all the constitutional qualifi cations. However, once 

a Member was seated, the House could vote to expel him 

(Article 1, section 5, paragraph 2).134

In 1898, the committee reported a bill, providing for 

voting by soldiers in congressional elections,135 and a bill 

proposing an amendment to the Constitution increasing 

the term of offi ce of Representatives from two years to four 

years.136 A year later, in 1899, the committee reported a bill 

(H.R. 11356, 55th Congress), to permit the use of voting 

machines in congressional elections. One of the most compelling historical footnotes of the committee’s actions was its 

consideration and support of a technical innovation that is 

today the subject of continued debate—the use of electronic 

voting machines in congressional elections.137

One of the last major issues considered by the committee 

prior to being subsumed by the new Committee on House 
44 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Administration in 1947, was the question of absentee balloting by servicemen.138

Prior to the establishment of the standing committee, 

a Select Committee on Laws Respecting the Election of the 

President and the Vice President, reported legislation relating 

to presidential succession, including, interestingly, a proposal 

in 1886 to amend the Constitution to create an office of 

Second Vice President.139

Caroline O’Day of New York, Chairwoman of the committee in the 75th–77th Congresses (1937–1942), has the distinction of being only the third woman in history to chair a 

standing committee in the House.

Committee on Memorials

Th e Committee on Memorials was established on January 3, 

1929. It was charged with arranging for the observance of a 

memorial day by the House in memory of the Members of 

the House and Senate who had died during the preceding session. In conjunction with this ceremonial duty, the committee 

was also entrusted with the responsibility of arranging for 

publication of the proceedings of these memorial services.140

Since the First Congress, it had been the custom to hold 

a separate memorial service for each Member who had died 

during the session or during the intervening recess. Over time, 

the practice became more formalized. Services were held in the 

Hall of the House, usually on a Sunday, and the proceedings 

were printed in the Congressional Record, and subsequently in 

book form. During early Congresses, when the membership 

of the House was small, deaths of Members were relatively 

infrequent. For more than a century, the practice of individual 

memorial services was adequate for its intended purpose: to 

provide an appropriate ceremony of remembrance for deceased 

Members. As the membership of the House grew, however, 

Members began to question whether the traditional memorial 

exercises should be modifi ed in some way.141

In the 67th Congress (1921–1923), 19 Representatives 

and 4 Senators died either during its 4 sessions or in the intervening adjournment. Th ere were a comparable number of 

deaths during the 68th and 69th Congresses (1923–1927). As 

the number of services increased, there was a perception that 

attendance was waning and the ceremonies were becoming 

perfunctory. Concerned Members felt that the traditional 

memorial programs were falling short of what was intended, 

and “lacked a great deal of the dignity of a proper memorial 

day in the House of Representatives.”142

In response to these perceived inadequacies, the House 

Rules Committee on January 3, 1929, reported the following 

resolution:

Resolved, Th at Rule X of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives be amended by inserting a new 

paragraph following paragraph 40, which shall be 

known as 40a and shall read as follows: “40a. On 

memorials, to consist of three members.” Th at Rule 

XI be amended by inserting a new paragraph following paragraph 40, that shall be numbered 40a 

and shall read as follows: “40a. It shall be the duty 

of the Committee on Memorials to arrange a suitable program for each memorial day observed by 

the House of Representatives as a memorial day in 

memory of Members of the Senate and House of 

Representatives who have died during the preceding period, and to arrange for the publication of the 

proceedings thereof. 143

The proposal enjoyed broad support, although some 

Members expressed reservations regarding the wisdom of 

establishing such a committee and abandoning the longstanding traditions of the House governing memorial exercises. With only three members, the committee was among 

the smallest in the House (at the time, most committees had 

20 or more members). Th is objection was countered by the 

argument that since the committee had a single ceremonial 

task, three Members would be competent to discharge the 

committee’s duties.

A second source of concern was the absence of any specifi city in the resolution regarding the details of the memorial 

service itself. Would it be suffi ciently dignifi ed? Th ese fears 

were allayed by assurances that the committee would take 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 45

great care to produce a memorial service befi tting the solemnity of the occasion. Th e program designed by the committee 

for its fi rst memorial exercise on February 20, 1929, seemed 

to quiet any doubts regarding the wisdom of establishing the 

Committee on Memorials. 

Th e service opened with a prelude of sacred selections 

by the United States Marine Band Orchestra. Speaker of 

the House, Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, presided, and the 

House Chaplain, Dr. James Shera Montgomery, delivered the 

invocation. Th e Clerk of the House read the roll of deceased 

Members, followed by memorial addresses by Members. 

Interspersed throughout the program were vocal selections 

by the Imperial Male Quartet, a popular singing group of the 

day. Th e service concluded with the Chaplain’s benediction 

and postlude by the Marine Band Orchestra.144

Th e Committee on Memorials operated from the 70th–

79th Congress (1927–1946), at which time its duties were 

absorbed by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. During 

its 18-year existence, only 14 diff erent Members served on 

the committee. Notable among these was Mary T. Norton 

of New Jersey, who was appointed as an inaugural member 

of the committee and served continually until the committee was abolished.145 She was chairwoman of the committee 

during the 77th Congress (1941–1942). In the 80th Congress 

(1947–1948), she was elected to the newly-formed Committee 

on House Administration, serving as ranking member. In 

the 81st Congress (1949–1950), when the Democrats gained 

a majority, she rose to the chairmanship. Her portrait now 

hangs in the offi ce of the House Democratic Leader.

Endnotes

1 Th e history of several of the precursor committees begins many 

years before their offi cial designation as standing committees, when 

they originally appeared as select committees of the House.

2 Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the fi ve 

House members of the Joint Committee on the Library constituted 

a separate House Committee on the Library. Today, the House 

members of the committee are drawn from the membership of the 

Committee on House Administration.

3 Th e House branch of the Committee on Printing, acting as a 

standing committee, continued until 1947 when it was incorporated 

into the Committee on House Administration. House Members of 

the Joint Committee have been selected from the membership of 

the Committee on House Administration since 1947.

4 Ninety years before being absorbed by the House Committee 

on Accounts in 1927, the Committee on Mileage originated as an 

outgrowth of that same committee.

5 House Journal, 1st Cong. 1st sess., April 1, 1789 (Washington: 

Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 6.

6 House Journal, 1st Cong. 1st sess., April 13, 1789 (Washington: 

Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 13.

7 Early committees did not have the degree of autonomy enjoyed 

by committees in the modern day Congress. Whatever the subject 

matter, the House was careful to retain control of its committees 

by giving them specifi c instructions as to their authority and duties.

8 1 Stat. 537 (Jan. 23, 1798).

9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Elections, Digest of Election Cases: Cases of Contested Elections in the House of Representatives

(Washington: GPO, 1878).

10 William Backus Guitteau, Government and Politics in the United 

States: Problems in American Democracy (Boston: Houghton Miffl in 

Co., 1922), p. 268.

11 “Committee on Elections,” Congressional Globe, vol. 42, Jan. 

24, 1870, p. 709.

12 Paul DeWitt Hasbrouck, Party Government in the House of 

Representatives (New York: Macmillan, 1927), p. 40.

13 Ralph Volney Harlow, Th e History of Legislative Methods in the 

Period Before 1825 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), p. 230.

14 “Election Contest—Smith v. Jackson,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 21, Jan. 29, 1890, p. 948.

15 George B. Galloway, History of the House of Representatives (New 

York: Crowell, 1961), p. 53.

16 Samuel S. Cox, Union-Disunion-Reunion: Three Decades of 

Federal Legislation, 1855 to 1885 (Providence, Rhode Island: J.A. 

& R.A. Reid, 1886), p. 340.

17 Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United 

States, vol. 1, sections 756-790.

18 “Committee on Elections,” Congressional Globe, vol. 42, Feb. 

19, 1870, p. 1439.

19 Annals of Congress, vol. 13, Dec. 27, 1803, p. 790.

20 “Rules of the House,” Annals of Congress, Dec. 17, 1805, p. 287.

21 U.S. Congress, House, Index to Reports of the House of Representatives, 58 vols., compiled by Th omas Hudson McKee (Washington: 

GPO, 1887).

22 47th Congress, H. Rept. 2035.

23 47th Congress, H. Rept. 2041.
46 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

24 47th Congress, H. Rept. 433.

25 35th Congress, H. Rept. 379.

26 40th Congress, H. Rept. 31.

27 46th Congress, H. Rept. 1789.

28 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Accounts, Electrical and 

Mechanical System of Voting, report to accompany H. Res. 223, 64th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 940 (Washington: GPO, 1916).

29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Accounts, Extermination 

of Insects in Capitol and Senate and House Offi ce Buildings, report to 

accompany H. Con. Res. 66, 67th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1185 

(Washington: GPO, 1922).

30 “Rule 27,” House Journal, 40th Cong., 1st sess., March 4, 1867 

(Washington: GPO, 1867), p. 287.

31 U.S. Congress, House, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States 

House of Representatives, vol. 4, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 94-661 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), chapter 17, sec. 39.2.

32 U.S. Congress, House, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 4 (Washington: GPO, 1907), 

sec. 4622.

33 U.S. Congress, House, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 7 (Washington: GPO, 1935), sec. 2373.

34 U.S. Congress, House, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 7 (Washington: GPO, 1935), 

sec. 2134.

35 28 Stat. 768 (March 2, 1895).

36 “Committee on Accounts,” Washington Post, March 1, 1884, p. 1.

37 2 Stat. 129 (Jan. 26, 1802).

38 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Sundry 

Civil Appropriations Bill, report to accompany H.R. 4729, 43rd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 149 (Washington: GPO, 1875), p. 24.

39 William C. Allen, History of the United States Capitol: A Chronicle 

of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 352.

40 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Congressional 

Library Building, report to accompany H.R. 1297, 49th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 173 (Washington: GPO, 1886), p. 1.

41 “New Library Building,” Washington Post, July 9, 1880, p. 1.

42 “Th e Congressional Library,” Washington Post, April 3, 1884, p. 1.

43 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Congressional 

Library Building, report to accompany H.R. 1297, 49th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 173 (Washington: GPO, 1886).

44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Laying Corner-Stone of Congressional Library Building, 51st Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 2096 (Washington: GPO, 1890).

45 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Library, Brady’s Collection of Historical Portraits, 41st Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 46 (Washington: GPO, 1871).

46 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Washington 

Monument, H. Misc. Doc. 8, 48th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1884).

47 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Monument 

to Abraham Lincoln, report to accompany S. 2012, 49th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 3053 (Washington: GPO, 1886).

48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Papers and 

Correspondence of Th omas Jeff erson, report to accompany S. 4087, 51st

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 3198 (Washington: GPO, 1890).

49 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Painting 

Portraits of Certain Ex-Speakers, report to accompany H. Res. 

163, 61st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 376 (Washington: GPO, 

1910).

50 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Oldroyd Collection of Lincoln Relics, report to accompany H.R. 9157, 68th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 753 (Washington: GPO, 1924).

51 House Journal, 25th Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 15, 1837 (Washington: 

Th omas Allen, 1837), p. 64.

52 1 Stat. 70 (Sept. 22, 1789).

53 3 Stat. 404 (Jan. 22, 1818).

54 House Journal, 24th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 20, 1837 (Washington: 

Blair & Rives, 1837), p. 249.

55 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Mileage, Compensation 

and Mileage of Members of Congress, report to accompany H.R. 

708, 34th Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 72 (Washington: GPO, 1857).

56 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Mileage, Distance to 

Residences of Senators and Representatives, 36th Cong., 2nd sess., Ex. 

Doc. 9 (Washington: GPO, 1860), p. 1.

57 3 Stat. 257 (March 19, 1816).

58 3 Stat. 345 (Feb. 6, 1817).

59 “Compensation Law,” Annals of Congress, vol. 30, Dec. 4, 1816, p. 237.

60 Horace Greeley, Recollections of a Busy Life: Including Reminiscences of American Politics and Politicians, From the Opening of the 

Missouri Contest to the Downfall of Slavery (New York: J.B.Ford & 

Co.; Boston: H. A. Brown & Co., 1869), p. 218.

61 New York Tribune, Dec. 22, 1848.

62 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Mileage, Mileage of Members of Congress, 30th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 23 (Washington: 

n.p., 1849), p. 1.

63 Horace Greeley, Recollections of a Busy Life, p. 223.

64 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Mileage, Mileage of Members of Congress, 30th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 23 (Washington: 

n.p., 1849), p. 5.

65 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Mileage, Mileage of Members of Congress, report to accompany H.R. 650, 45th Cong., 1st sess., 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 47

H. Rept. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1877).

66 House Journal, 56th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 25, 1900 (Washington: 

GPO, 1900), p. 198.

67 “No Mileage for Roberts,” Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1900, p. 4.

68 From 1790 until 1910, the Speaker appointed the members 

and chairs of the standing and select committees. By 1837, it was 

common practice that such appointments were made at the commencement of each Congress. In 1911, the Speaker was stripped of 

the power to appoint, and the House inherited the duty of electing 

committees and their chairmen by resolution from lists prepared 

by the party caucuses.

69 “Democrats Not Yet Reconciled,” Washington Post, March 18, 

1909, p. 2.

70 William Bennett Munro, Th e Government of the United States, 

National, State and Local (New York: Th e Macmillan Company, 

1919), p. 199.

71 “House Resolution 7,” Congressional Record, vol. 69, Dec. 5, 

1927, p. 12.

72 Lauros G. McConachie, Congressional Committees: A Study of 

the Origins and Development of Our National and Local Legislative 

Methods (New York: B. Franklin, 1974), pp. 40–41.

73 Rep. Samuel Simons, “Remarks by Mr. Simons of Connecticut,” 

Congressional Globe, vol. 14, March 16, 1844, p. 236 (appendix).

74 House Journal, 28th Cong., 1st sess., March 23, 1844 (Washington: Blair & Rives, 1844), p. 647.

75 9 Stat. 113 (Aug. 3, 1876).

76 House Journal, 30th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 17, 1848 (Washington: 

Wendell & Van Benthuysen, 1847–48), p. 435).

77 U.S. Congress, House, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 4 (Washington: GPO, 1907), 

sec. 4648.

78 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” H. Res. 238, Congressional 

Record, vol. 79, June 3, 1935, p. 8604.

79 House Journal, 20th Cong. 2nd sess., Dec. 19, 1828 (Washington: 

Gales & Seaton, 1828), p. 81.

80 House Journal, 21st Cong. 1st sess., March 30, 1830 ( Washington: Duff Green, 1829), pp. 479–480.

81 House Journal, 26th Cong. 1st sess., April 14, 1840 (Washington: 

Blair & Rives, 1840), p. 791.

82 “Report on Retrenchment,” Congressional Record, vol. 11, March 

5, 1842, p. 287.

83 U.S. Congress, House, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 4 (Washington: GPO, 1907), 

sec. 4347.

84 See for instance: S. 1436, 96th Congress, Th e Public Printing 

Reorganization Act of 1979. 

85 House Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., May 19, 1789 (Washington: 

Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 38.

86 “Gossip Here and Th ere,” Washington Post, July 30, 1888, p. 4.

87 “Free Coal Bill Signed,” Washington Post, Jan. 16, 1903, p. 4.

88 “Kirwan Speeds Aids Bill to Roosevelt in Taxicab Dash,” Washington Post, March 12, 1941, p. 2.

89 “Joint Rules for Enrollment,” Annals of Congress, vol. 1, July 

27, 1789, p. 698.

90 “Importation of Fruit-Plants,” Congressional Record, vol. 2, Feb. 

20, 1874, p. 1663.

91 “Enrollment of Statutes,” Congressional Record, vol. 2, Feb. 9, 

1874, p. 1340.

92 “Enrolling of Bills,” Congressional Record, vol. 2, Feb. 20, 1874, 

p. 1667.

93 “Capitol Chat,” Washington Post, Dec. 13, 1892, p. 4.

94 “Bicycle Messengers for Enrolling Room,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 32, Feb. 25, 1899, p. 2409.

95 George B. Galloway, History of the House of Representatives (New 

York: Th omas Y. Crowell, 1961), p. 78.

96 Rule XIII, clause 5(a)(3) of the Rules of the House grants leave 

to report at any time to the Committee on House Administration 

on the following subjects within its jurisdiction: “on enrolled bills, 

on contested elections, on matters referred to it concerning printing for the use of the House or the two Houses, on expenditure of 

the applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(j)(1) of 

rule X, and on matters relating to preservation and availability of 

noncurrent records of the House under rule VII.” U.S. Congress, 

House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual and Rules of the House of 

Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, 

111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 111-157 (Washington: GPO, 2011).

97 25 Stat. 672 (Feb. 16, 1889).

98 “Useless Papers in Executive Departments,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 20, Jan. 15, 1889, p. 794.

99 “Rule XI. Powers and Duties of Committees,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 47, April 4, 1911, p. 13.

100 48 Stat. 1122-1124 (June 19, 1934).

101 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, 

Sanitary Conditions of the Capitol Building, Etc., 53rd Cong., 3rd sess., 

H. Rept. 1980 (Washington: GPO, 1895), p. 1.

102 A select committee on ventilation in the House was first 

empaneled in the 39th Congress (1865-1867) and charged with 

reporting to the House as to “what alterations can and should be 

made in this hall to provide for its better ventilation, and for the 

more prompt and convenient dispatch of business.” House Journal, 

39th Cong. 1st sess., July 27, 1866 (Washington: GPO, 1866), p. 

1165.
48 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

103 House Journal, 7th Cong. 1st sess. Feb. 17, 1802 (Washington: 

Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 101.

104 “Th irty-Ninth Congress,” New York Times, April 27, 1866, 

p. 1.

105 House Journal, 40th Cong. 1st sess., Nov. 26, 1867 (Washington: 

GPO, 1867), p. 269.

106 16 Stat. 373 (May 4, 1870).

107 16 Stat. 312 (July 15, 1870).

108 16 Stat. 501 (March 3, 1871).

109 “Ventilation in the House,” Washington Post, May 1, 1879, p. 4.

110 “Th e Ventilation of the House,” Washington Post, April 10, 

1896, p. 4.

111 “Miss Grundy’s Gossip,” Washington Post April 26,1879, p. 1.

112 “Members Must Have Pure Air,” Washington Post, June. 8, 

1894, p. 1.

113 “Th e Ventilation of the House,” Washington Post, April 14, 

1886, p. 1. 

114 “Ventilation of the Hall of the House,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 27, Jan. 24, 1895, p. 1308.

115 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, 

Sanitary Condition of the Capitol, 53rd Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 1980 

(Washington: GPO, 1895), p. 3.

116 William C. Allen, History of the United States Capitol (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 402.

117 45 Stat. 526 (May 14, 1928).

118 George H. Haynes, Th e Senate of the United States, Its History 

and Practice, 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Miffl in Company, 1938), 

v. 2, p. 919.

119 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Ventilation and 

Acoustics, Removal of Partition on South Side of the Hall of the House 

of Representatives, report to accompany Mis. Doc., 125, 51st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 4021 (Washington: GPO, 1891).

120 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, Heating, Ventilation, Etc., House of Representatives, report to 

accompany H. Res. 367, 55th Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 2206 (Washington: GPO, 1899).

121 Blair Bolles, Tyrant From Illinois (New York: Norton, 1951), 

p. 195.

122 “Small Talk of Washington,” New York Times, Jan. 7, 1908, 

p. 6.

123 “House Session Brief: Mr. Lindsay Resigns Committee 

Appointment,” Washington Post, Jan. 7, 1908, p. 4.

124 “Bolting Democrats Get Choice Places,” New York Times, 

March 17, 1909, p. 2.

125 U.S. Congress, House, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 3 (Washington: GPO, 1907), 

sec. 2631. 

126 U.S. Congress, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1935), sec. 3633.

127 “Public Buildings in the District of Columbia,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 17, Jan. 18, 1886, p. 728.

128 Arthur de Bausset, Aerial Navigation on the Vacuum Principle, 

(Lowell, MA: Citizen Printing Works, 1889).

129 “House Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 25, Aug. 18, 

1893, pp. 477–478.

130 “Committee on Counting the Electoral Votes,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 5, Jan. 12, 1877, pp. 608–609.

131 “Report From Committee on Rules,” Congressional Record, vol. 

19, Dec. 21, 1887, p. 146.

132 House Journal, 79th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1945 (Washington: 

GPO, 1946), p. 821 (appendix).

133 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Publicity of 

Contributions Used in Securing or Infl uencing Nomination of Candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, report 

to accompany H.R. 23349, 62nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 565 

(Washington: GPO, 1912).

134 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Election of President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Amendments to 

the Constitution Prohibiting Polygamy, report to accompany H. Res. 

354, 55th Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 2307 (Washington: GPO, 1899).

135 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Election of President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Soldiers as Voters 

in Congressional Elections, report to accompany H.R. 10550, 55th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1502 (Washington: GPO, 1899).

136 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Election of President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Terms of Members 

of the House of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 6, 55th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 706 (Washington: GPO, 1898).

137 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Election of President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Apportionment and 

Election of Representatives, report to accompany H.R. 11356, 55th

Cong., 3rd sess., H. Rept. 1816 (Washington: GPO, 1899).

138 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Election of President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, To Facilitate Voting by Members of the Armed Forces and Certain Others Absent From 

Th eir Place of Residence, hearings on H.R. 5644, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., 

March 15, 1946 (Washington: GPO, 1946).

139 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on the Election of 

President and Vice President, Amendment to the Constitution Creating and Defi ning the Offi ce of Second Vice President of the United 
PREDECESSOR PANELS 49

States, report to accompany H. Res. 61, 49th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

2493 (Washington: GPO, 1886).

140 “House Resolution 272,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 

1929, pp. 1077–1081.

141 Only a single Member of Congress, Rep. Th eodorick Bland of 

Virginia, died during the 1st Congress.

142 Rep. Bertrand Snell, remarks in the House, “House Resolution 

272,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 1929, p. 1077.

143 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending Rule 

X, report to accompany H. Res. 272, 70th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1963 (Washington: GPO, 1928).

144 “Memorial Exercises,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Feb. 20, 

1929, pp. 3857–3914.

145 Representative Mary T. Norton was the fi rst woman to head a 

major House committee, chairing the Committee on the District 

of Columbia in the 72nd–75th Congresses (1931–1938), and the 

Committee on Labor in the 75th–79th Congresses (1935–1946).

 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 51

 I I I . J U R I S DIC T IONA L H I S TORY OF T H E COM M I T T E E

Origins and Development

Th e Committee on House Administration was established in 

January 1947 as part of a larger eff ort to streamline the congressional committee system and to modernize the internal 

management and operations of the House and Senate. With 

the enactment of the Legislation Reorganization Act of 1946, 

which is widely acknowledged to be a critical milestone in 

modernizing Congress, the number of House committees was 

reduced from 48 to 19. Prior to the reorganization, many panels 

had overlapping jurisdictions. Ten committees, with far-fl ung 

jurisdictions covering federal elections, memorial designations, 

and oversight of various House personnel and administrative 

functions, were consolidated under the new Committee on 

House Administration (see the “Predecessor Panels” chapter 

for a detailed examination of each committee).

Since 1947, the two principal functions of the Committee on House Administration have been oversight of federal 

elections and the day-to-day operations in the House. Th e 

former responsibility means that the Committee has taken an 

active role in shaping legislation that touches on any and all 

aspects of federal elections, as well as issues concerning corrupt practices, contested congressional elections, campaign 

fi nance disclosures, and the credentials and qualifi cations of 

House Members. Th e latter role has aff orded the Committee an opportunity to exert a great infl uence on the internal 

procedures and daily operations of the institution. Also, the 

Committee has had continuous oversight responsibility for 

the Library of Congress, the House Library, the U.S. Botanic 

Gardens, and the Smithsonian Institution.

Jurisdictional History

80th Congress (1947–1948). Jurisdictional responsibility 

granted to the Committee by the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1946 included “all proposed legislation, messages, 

petitions, memorials, and other matters relating” to the following subjects:

(A) Employment of persons by the House, including clerks 

for Members and committees, and reporters of debates.

(B) Expenditure of the contingent fund of the House.

(C) Th e auditing and settling of all accounts which may be 

charged to the contingent fund.1

(D) Measures relating to accounts of the House generally.

(E) Appropriations from the contingent fund.

(F) Measures relating to services to the House, including 

the House restaurant and administration of the House 

offi ce buildings and of the House wing of the Capitol.

(G) Measures relating to travel of Members of the House.

(H) Measures relating to the assignment of offi ce space for 

Members and committees.

(I) Measures relating to the disposition of useless executive 

papers.2

(J) Matters relating to the Library of Congress and the 

House Library; statuary and pictures; acceptance or 

purchase of works of art for the Capitol; the Botanic 

Gardens; management of the Library of Congress; purchase of books and manuscripts; erection of monuments 

to the memory of individuals [except for measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, maintenance, 

and care of the buildings and grounds of the Botanic 

Gardens and Library of Congress, which jurisdiction 

was given to the House Committee on Public Works].

(K) Matters relating to the Smithsonian Institution and 

the incorporation of similar institutions [except for the 

measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, 

maintenance, and care of the buildings and grounds, 

which jurisdiction was given to the House Committee 

on Public Works].

(L) Matters pertaining to printing and correction of the 

Congressional Record.

(M) Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 

President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; 
52 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

contested elections; credentials and qualifi cations; and 

federal elections generally.

Th e Committee on House Administration was also given 

the responsibility for: 

(A) Examining all bills, amendments, and joint resolutions 

after passage by the House; and in cooperation with 

the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 

of examining all bills and joint resolutions which shall 

have passed both Houses, to see that they are correctly 

enrolled; and when signed by the Speaker of the House 

and the President of the Senate, shall forthwith present the same, when they shall have originated in the 

House, to the President of the United States in person, 

and report the fact and date of such presentation to 

the House;

(B) Reporting to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House the 

travel of Members of the House;

(C) Arranging a suitable program for each day observed by the 

House of Representatives as a memorial day in memory of 

Members of the Senate and House of Representatives who 

have died during the preceding period, and to arrange for 

the publication of the proceedings thereof.3

Th e 1946 act also provided the statutory basis for the 

Joint Committee on the Library and the Joint Committee on 

Printing, and that the chair and four members of the Committee on House Administration serve on the both committees together with the chair and four members of the Senate 

Rules and Administration Committee.4

83rd Congress (1953–1954). Th e Mutual Security Act 

of 1954, directed House and Senate committees to report 

certain foreign travel expenses to the Committee on House 

Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, respectively.5

 Th is provision was the fi rst of many to 

deal with the reporting of foreign travel and the relationship 

of the two administration committees to these reports. For 

example, in the 85th Congress (1957–1958), this provision 

was amended to require annual transmittal of foreign travel 

reports to the Committee on House Administration from the 

other House committees and for these reports to be published 

in the Congressional Record.6

88th Congress (1963–1964). A signifi cant event in the 

developing professionalization of House employees occurred 

with enactment of the House Employees Position Classifi cation Act of 1964. Th e act directed the Committee to establish and maintain a compensation schedule for employees 

of House offi cers and certain other offi ces; create position 

classifi cation standards and approve position descriptions; 

and create additional permanent and temporary positions to 

promulgate regulations to implement the act.7

89th Congress (1965–1966). The Committee was 

given jurisdiction over resolutions authorizing committees 

to employ additional professional and clerical personnel.8

91st Congress (1969–1970). The Select Committee 

on the House Restaurant was given jurisdiction over House 

dining facilities, and the Committee on House Administration’s jurisdiction was limited to legislation involving House 

dining facilities.9 Th e Select Committee to Regulate Parking 

on the House Side of the Capitol was given jurisdiction over 

outside parking, and the House Building Commission was 

authorized to delegate to the Architect of the Capitol responsibilities for parking within House offi ce buildings.10

Passage of the Federal Contested Election Act of 1969 

(FCEA) established the process for contesting a House election, and vested the Committee with adjudicatory authority 

over the process.11

With a July 1970 resolution, the House transferred some 

jurisdiction over campaign fi nance to the Standards of Offi -

cial Conduct Committee from the Committee on House 

Administration. Th e Standards Committee was given jurisdiction over: “Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and 

use of campaign contributions for candidates for the offi ce of 

Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico.”12

Th e jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration 

was not amended, giving it and the Standards Committee 

overlapping jurisdiction.

Also in 1970, Congress formally relinquished its role in 

approving the disposition of executive papers. Th e Joint Committee on the Disposition of Executive Papers was abolished, 
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 53

and the Committee on House Administration and Senate 

Rules and Administration Committee were authorized to 

provide advice to the administrator of the General Services 

Administration on the disposition of such papers.13

92nd Congress (1971–1972). Th e House transferred 

from the Clerk of the House to the Committee jurisdiction 

over computer services, and authorized the Committee 

to incur expenses for the maintenance and improvement 

of computer services and to hire technical staff. These 

decisions marked the beginning of House Information 

Systems (H.I.S.).14

Th e Committee was delegated wide authority to establish, by committee order, allowances for Members and committees. For Members’ personal offi ces, the Committee was 

authorized to establish allowances from the contingent fund 

for clerk hire, postage, stationery, telephone and other communications, district offi ce space and expenses, and travel 

and mileage to a district. For committees, the Committee 

was authorized to establish allowances for postage, stationery, 

and telephone and other communications.15

Th e House once again established a Select Committee 

on the House Restaurant, but gave it responsibility for restaurant operations, subject to the jurisdiction and authority 

of the Committee on House Administration. Th e House also 

transferred the duties and records related to House dining 

facilities to the Committee on House Administration from 

the Architect of the Capitol.16

93rd Congress (1973–1974). Congress agreed to a 

change in federal law initiated in the House to discontinue 

the Committee on House Administration’s duties to receive 

committees’ foreign travel reports and publish them in the 

Congressional Record.17

Th e principal development in the 93rd Congress aff ecting House organization and procedures and the Committee 

was the adoption in October 1974 of the Committee Reform 

Amendments, eff ective with the convening of the 94th Congress (1975–1976).18 Under the amendments, the Committee received jurisdiction over parking and over a committee 

scheduling system that was to be implemented through H.I.S. 

Reimbursements for the attendance of Members-elect at early 

organizational meetings was subject to regulation by the 

Committee. Committees were to fi le foreign travel reports 

with the Committee.

Reference in the Committee’s jurisdiction to memorial 

services for deceased Members was deleted, and its jurisdiction over the Hatch Act was transferred to the Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service Committee.19

94th Congress (1975–1976). Th e House removed campaign contributions to candidates for the House from the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct and restored it to the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

House Administration.20

Th e House gave the Committee shared jurisdiction over 

measures relating to the compensation, retirement, and benefi ts of Members, offi cers, and employees, which had largely 

been within the sole jurisdiction of the Post Offi ce and Civil 

Service Committee.21

By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 

eff ective January 3, 1975, jurisdiction over House Restaurants was returned to the Committee,22 the Committee 

obtained jurisdiction over parking facilities of the House,23

reimbursements for the attendance of Members-elect at 

early organization meetings was subject to regulation by 

the Committee, and committees were to fi le foreign travel 

reports with the Committee.24

On July 1, 1976, the House established the Commission 

on Administrative Review. Th e commission, which comprised eight Representatives and seven public members, was 

charged with studying the House’s administrative services, 

including personnel, administration, accounting, purchasing, and allowances, and making a fi nal report to the House 

no later than December 31, 1977.25 Representative David R. 

Obey was named chair, and the commission became popularly known as the Obey Commission. Th e same day, the 

House stripped the Committee on House Administration of 

its authority to set allowances for Members, House offi cers, 

and committees without the adoption of a resolution by the 

House, limiting the committee’s adjustments to allowances 
54 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

to a change in prices, technological improvements in equipment, or cost-of-living increases pursuant to the Federal Pay 

Comparability Act of 1971.26

Prior to those House actions, Representative Wayne 

L. Hays resigned as chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration on June 18, 1976, after admitting to having an 

aff air with a Committee secretary. Four days later, Representative Frank Th ompson, Jr. was selected as the new chair of the 

Committee, and it adopted a series of orders that originated 

in recommendations by a separate three-member Democratic 

task force, also headed by Representative Obey. Among the 

orders, Members and chairs were required to certify monthly 

their staff , salaries, and duties; disbursements would be made 

only upon presentation of a voucher; cash-outs from the 

stamp allowance were ended; a Member could transfer funds 

between seven of his or her offi ce’s separate allowances, and 

expend some of the clerk-hire allowance for computers and 

offi ce equipment; and quarterly House spending reports in 

a new format were required. One order gave the Committee 

power to adjust the clerk-hire allowance for the federal costof-living adjustment. Th e Committee also requested an audit 

of committees’ fi nances by the General Accounting Offi ce.27

95th Congress (1977–1978). In the International Security Assistance Act of 1978, the House changed its committee 

foreign travel reporting requirement from the Committee on 

House Administration to the Clerk of the House, but maintained the requirement for publication in the Congressional 

Record.28 Earlier, the House authorized the Committee to 

recommend spending levels for foreign as well as domestic 

travel in committee funding resolutions.29

In an expansion of the Committee’s jurisdiction, the 

House authorized committee funding resolutions reported 

by the Committee to apply to “any committee, commission, 

or other entity.”30 Th e House rule previously applied only to 

funding resolution for standing committees. 

Th e Committee was given committee jurisdiction over 

the House beauty shop.31

96th Congress (1979–1980). Th e Committee acquired 

new jurisdiction after the Senate abolished the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations in the course of reorganizing its committee system in 1977. Th e House fi rst, in 

the 95th Congress, created a Select Committee on Congressional Operations to operate an Offi ce of Placement and an 

Offi ce of Management and to study House organizational 

and operational issues.32 Th e select committee’s existence was 

not renewed in the 96th Congress (1979–1980), however, and 

the House agreed to a resolution directing the Committee on 

House Administration to provide various services, such as a 

placement service and professional development.33 Th e House 

also directed the Committee to regulate solid waste disposal 

for the House.34

Th e House became explicit about the relationship of 

the Committee to the operation of vacant Representatives’ 

offi ces. In the 96th Congress and 97th Congress, payments 

to staff of offi ces vacant for any reason could be continued 

upon the approval of vouchers by the Committee on House 

Administration and the signature of the committee’s chair.35

In the 98th Congress, the Clerk of the House was directed to 

supervise the staff and manage the offi ce of a Member who 

died, resigned, or was expelled, or of a Member who was 

incapacitated. With the permission of the Committee, the 

Clerk was authorized to appoint staff to operate the offi ce.36

97th Congress (1983–1984). Following a series of incidents involving allegations of sexual improprieties between 

Members and congressional pages, the House, independent of 

action by the Committee, established the House Page Board, 

with jurisdiction over the page program.37

99th Congress (1985–1986). Th e House instituted more 

orderly funding of committees by providing three months’ 

interim funding in the fi rst session of a Congress at a rate of 

9% of each committee’s funding in the expense resolution 

of the previous session of Congress, thus giving the Committee and the full chamber time to report and agree to, 

respectively, committee funding resolutions. Th e Committee, 

in addition, was authorized to regulate spending under the 

rules changes.38

100th Congress (1987–1988). The House authorized 

three months’ interim funding for committees at the beginning 
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 55

of the second session as well as the fi rst session, and permitted 

the Committee to reduce spending below the 9% authorized.39

Two new entities were created that included membership 

from the Committee on House Administration—the House 

Fine Arts Board, to be comprised of the House members of 

the Joint Committee on the Library, with the Committee 

on House Administration chair designated as chair of the 

board,40 and the United States Capitol Historical Preservation 

Commission, whose members were to include the chairs and 

ranking minority members of the House Administration and 

Senate Rules and Administration Committees.41

Th e House applied anti-discrimination provisions to 

House employment rules, and created an Office of Fair 

Employment Practices to enforce these provisions through 

a complaint and hearings process. Th e chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee were to appoint employees of the offi ce. In the event of an appeal from a decision of 

the offi ce, a review panel was to be created comprising two 

Committee members appointed by the chair, two members 

appointed by the ranking minority member, two House offi -

cers appointed by the Speaker, and two minority employees 

appointed by the minority leader.42

101st Congress (1989–1990). The Committee was 

authorized to promulgate regulations implementing House 

Rule XXXVI pertaining to noncurrent records. If the Clerk 

of the House determined that a House record should not 

be available, the Clerk was to notify the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee in writing. Th e Committee was also granted leave to report on matters relating to the 

preservation and availability of noncurrent House records.43

Another rules change allowed the Committee to meet 

during House consideration of a measure for amendment 

under the fi ve-minute rule, a privilege previously held by 

only the Appropriations, Budget, Rules, Standards of Offi cial 

Conduct, and Ways and Means Committees.44

In 1989, the Postmaster General was directed to provide various reports on the costs of franked mail to the 

Clerk of the House, Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (a unit of the Post Offi ce and Civil Service 

Committee), Committee on House Administration, Secretary of the Senate, and Senate Rules and Administration 

Committee. Th e Commission on Congressional Mailing 

Standards—also called the Franking Commission—and 

the Committee on House Administration, for the House, 

and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, for 

the Senate, were directed to “consider promulgating such 

regulations” that would ensure total mailing costs would not 

exceed amounts made available for a fi scal year.45

Congress created a commission to recommend individuals 

to the President for a 10-year appointment as Architect of the 

Capitol. Th e commission comprised the Speaker, President pro 

tempore, House and Senate majority and minority leaders, and 

the chairs and ranking members of the House Administration 

and Senate Rules and Administration Committees.46

102nd Congress (1991–1992). In response to scandals 

involving the House Bank, House Post Offi ce, House Restaurant, and other perceived abuses of power, the House passed 

the Administrative Reform Resolution.47 Among the provisions that aff ected Committee directly were the following:

• Th e position of Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was created and assigned operational and 

fi nancial responsibility for certain functions enumerated 

in the resolution, subject to the policy direction and 

oversight of the Committee.48

• The position of Inspector General was created and 

assigned certain duties, subject to the policy direction 

and oversight of the Committee.49

• Th e Committee was directed to implement decisions of 

the Speaker that eliminated perquisites.

• Th e Committee was directed to create an offi ce of general counsel “in a manner which shall insure appropriate 

coordination with and participation by both the majority and minority leaderships on representational and 

litigation matters.”

• Th e Offi ce of the House Postmaster was eliminated.

• A Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight was 

established under the Committee, with equal majority 

and minority membership, to receive audits from the 

Inspector General and to provide oversight of the Clerk 

of the House, Sergeant at Arms, Doorkeeper, Director 
56 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, and Inspector 

General.50

Th e House created a new Rule LI, Employment Practices, 

which incorporated by reference the Fair Employment Practices Resolution fi rst agreed to the by the House, in the 100th

Congress containing duties for the Committee as described 

above. In the 103rd Congress, the House also added to this new 

rule authority for the Committee to issue rules and regulations 

applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to the House.51

Th e General Accounting Offi ce (GAO), in cooperation 

with the Committee, was directed to develop accounting 

standards and guidelines to be used by House legislative 

service organizations.52

Congress created the Commission on the Bicentennial of 

the United States Capitol, and included the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee among its members.53

103rd Congress (1993–1994). Congress approved 

legislation reducing the number of employee positions in 

the House, Senate, and each legislative branch agency by 

4%, with at least 62.5% of the reduction to be completed by 

September 30, 1994, and the balance of the reduction to be 

completed by September 30, 1995.54 Th e law required the 

Committee play a key role by reporting expense resolutions 

under its jurisdiction and taking other actions to achieve the 

specifi ed reductions. 

Th e Committee was directed by law to transfer to the 

Clerk of the House responsibility for all fi nancial activities of 

legislative service organizations.55

The Committee was directed by law to implement a 

transit-pass system for House employees.56

104th Congress (1995–1996). Substantial House rules 

changes implemented for the 104th Congress57 included 

reconstituting standing committees and changing the name 

of the Committee on House Administration to the Committee on House Oversight. (Th e name was changed back 

to the Committee on House Administration at the start of 

the 106th Congress.)

References to the “contingent fund” were eliminated 

without changing the accounts over which the Committee 

would have jurisdiction—committee salaries and expenses 

(except for the Appropriations Committee); House Information Systems; and allowances and expenses of Members, 

House offi cers, and House administrative offi ces.58

Th e House amended its general oversight rule to require 

each committee to adopt an oversight plan in an open session by February 15 of the fi rst session of a Congress and to 

submit its plan to the Committee on Government Reform 

and Oversight and the Committee on House Oversight. Th e 

House also disallowed consideration of expense resolutions 

for committees that had not submitted oversight plans, a 

constraint on the Oversight Committee’s authority to report 

such resolutions.

Th e House also directed the Clerk to report semiannually to the Oversight Committee on the financial and 

operational status of each function of the offi ce. Th is same 

direction was given to the House Sergeant at Arms.

Th e House created a new offi cer—the Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO)—with functions assigned by the 

Speaker and the House Oversight Committee and under 

the policy direction of the Speaker and the Oversight Committee. Th e CAO was directed to report semiannually to the 

Committee on the fi nancial and operational status of each 

function of the offi ce and set up a new Offi ce of Procurement and Purchasing.59

Th e House abolished the position of Director of NonLegislative and Financial Services, which operated under 

the under the policy direction and oversight of the thenCommittee on House Administration. Th e rules changes also 

made conforming changes to the additional functions of the 

Oversight Committee relating to the Chief Administrative 

Offi cer, Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, 

and Doorkeeper.

The House directed its Inspector General to undertake a comprehensive audit of House fi nancial records and 

administrative operations, in consultation with the Speaker 

and the Committee, and to report pursuant to a House rule 

that included the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee among the recipients of any report. 
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 57

Jurisdiction over the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards60—popularly known as the Franking Commission—was transferred to the Committee from 

the Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee, which was not 

reconstituted as a committee.

Th e House prohibited the creation or continuation of 

legislative service organizations, and directed the Committee 

to ensure the orderly termination of such existing entities.

Th e Committee’s jurisdiction over the erection of monuments in memory of individuals was transferred to the reconstituted Committee on Resources.61

Th e Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 applied 

certain federal labor and antidiscrimination laws to legislative 

branch employees and established an Offi ce of Compliance.62

Oversight of the Offi ce of Compliance and board of directors 

was entrusted to the House Oversight and Senate Rules and 

Administration Committees.63

Th e House of Representatives Administrative Reform 

Technical Corrections Act of 1995 included provisions that:

• established the Members’ Representational Allowance 

(MRA), subject to regulations promulgated by the 

House Oversight Committee;64

• provided additional regulatory authority to the Committee to set and adjust the amounts, terms, and conditions of the MRA;65

• authorized the Committee to regulate positions allowed 

for Member staff s, and allowed the two-month term of 

a temporary employee to be extended with the written 

permission of the Committee;66

• disallowed payments from House accounts unless authorized by the Committee;67 and

• authorized the Committee to regulate the distribution 

to Members of the published annotated edition of the 

United States Code.68

Th e House Sergeant at Arms was provided with the same 

law enforcement authority as the Capitol Police, subject to 

regulations promulgated by the Committee.69

The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 

made the Committee on House Oversight and Senate Rules 

and Administration Committee responsible for determining 

the structure and operation of a program established by the 

act for exchanging information among legislative branch 

agencies, and for providing oversight of the program.70

Th e same act transferred responsibility for Capitol complex security systems to the Capitol Police from the Architect 

of the Capitol, subject to the direction of the House Oversight 

and Senate Rules and Administration Committees.71

105th Congress (1997–1998). Th e House deleted references to the Speaker in the rule providing for the Offi ce 

of the Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO), leaving the 

Committee solely responsible for the CAO’s supervision 

and policy direction.

106th Congress (1999–2000). Th e opening-day rules 

package for the 106th Congress changed the name of the 

House Oversight Committee back to the Committee on 

House Administration. Th e rules package also clarifi ed the 

Committee’s jurisdiction over the employment of reporters 

of debate.72

The FY2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 

authorized the Committee to promulgate regulations governing the return to the Treasury of unspent Members’ allowances.73 Th is provision has been included in subsequent legislative branch appropriations acts.

107th Congress (2001–2002). Th e House transferred 

responsibility to the Clerk of the House for examining the 

engrossment of bills, amendments, and joint resolutions 

passed by the House and the enrollment of bills and joint 

resolutions passed by both houses, and for the presenting of 

House-originated bills and joint resolutions to the President. 

Th e Committee’s responsibility was repealed.74

Th e House added “policy direction” to the Committee’s 

jurisdiction vis-à-vis the Inspector General, and removed its 

policy direction jurisdiction over the Clerk of the House, 

Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Offi cer. Th e 

Committee’s oversight jurisdiction over all of these House 

offi cers was retained.75

Th e Help America Vote Act stipulated that chairs and 

ranking minority members of the Committee on House 

Administration and Senate Rules and Administration 
58 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Committee were each to make two appointments to the 

Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors,76 and 

the chairs and ranking minority members of the two committees, or their designees, were to serve as nonvoting, ex 

offi cio members of the Help America Vote Foundation 

Board of Directors.77

108th Congress (2003–2004). Th e House codifi ed the 

“operating procedures” of the Standards of Offi cial Conduct 

Committee, which included authority of the committee to 

retain outside counsel subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration.

Th e House reiterated a long-standing policy that the 

associate, or “shared,” staff of the Appropriations Committee 

are not subject to review by the Committee on House Administration in connection with the Committee’s reporting of 

committee expense resolutions.78

Subject to the approval of the Committee on House 

Administration and Senate Rules and Administration Committee, the Capitol Police Board was authorized to promulgate regulations on the release of security information.79

In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks 

and a subsequent incident in which the biological agent 

anthrax was mailed to several recipients, including two Capitol Hill offi ces, the Chief Administrative Offi cer was directed 

to issue regulations, subject to the approval of the Committee, on mail handling to ensure the safety of individuals who 

might come into contact with mail.80

Federal law (2 U.S.C. secs. 29a and 43b-2) was 

amended relating to the attendance of Members, Memberselect, and staff at orientations for new Members conducted 

by the Committee.81

112th Congress (2011–2012). In the 112th Congress, 

the Committee’s jurisdiction, appearing at Rule X, cl. 1(j),82

included the following:

(1) Appropriations from accounts for committee salaries 

and expenses (except for the Committee on Appropriations); House Information Resources; and allowances 

and expenses of Members, Delegates, the Resident 

Commissioner, offi cers, and administrative offi ces of 

the House.

(2) Auditing and settling of all accounts described in subparagraph (1).

(3) Employment of persons by the House, including staff for 

Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and 

committees; and reporters of debates, subject to rule VI.83

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11), the Library of 

Congress, including management thereof; the House 

Library; statuary and pictures; acceptance or purchase 

of works of art for the Capitol; the Botanic Garden; and 

purchase of books and manuscripts.84

(5) Th e Smithsonian Institution and the incorporation of similar institutions (except as provided in paragraph (r)(11)).85

(6) Expenditure of accounts described in subparagraph (1).

(7) Franking Commission.

(8) Printing and correction of the Congressional Record.

(9) Accounts of the House generally.

(10) Assignment of offi ce space for Members, Delegates, the 

Resident Commissioner, and committees.

(11) Disposition of useless executive papers.

(12) Election of the President, Vice President, Members, 

Senators, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner; 

corrupt practices; contested elections; credentials and 

qualifi cations; and Federal elections generally.

(13) Services to the House, including the House Restaurant, parking facilities, and administration of the 

House Offi ce Buildings and of the House wing of 

the Capitol.

(14) Travel of Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.

(15) Raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions 

for candidates for offi ce of Representative, of Delegate, 

and of Resident Commissioner.

(16) Compensation, retirement, and other benefi ts of the 

Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, offi -

cers, and employees of Congress.

Pursuant to Rule XIII, cl. 5(a)(3), the Committee had 

leave to report on matters related to enrolled bills, contested 

elections, printing, expenditure from accounts under its 

jurisdiction, and the preservation and availability of noncurrent House records. Under Rule X, cl. 4(d), the Committee 

had “additional functions” related to offi cers of the House,86
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 59

gifts to the House, and settlements under the Congressional 

Accountability Act. 

Th e principal authority in House rules regarding expense 

resolutions, which was within the jurisdiction of the Committee, was contained in Rule X, cl. 6 and cl. 7. Other provisions aff ecting the expense resolutions and House accounts 

appeared elsewhere in House rules. Limits on use of the frank 

contained in House rules appeared in Rule XXIV, cl. 4-cl. 

9. Authority related to the noncurrent records of the House 

appeared in Rule VII.87

Jurisdictional Relationship with Other House 

Committees

Th e Committee has working relationships with its Senate 

counterpart, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee; with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, particularly the House Legislative Branch Subcommittee; and with the Speaker. With jurisdiction over aspects 

of the operation of the Capitol, House offi ce buildings, and 

services within the Capitol Complex, the Committee on 

House Administration also has working relationships with 

the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

which has jurisdiction over construction of public buildings 

generally and the Capitol and House and Senate offi ce buildings specifi cally, and the House Offi ce Building Commission, 

which comprises the Speaker and two House Members, traditionally the majority and minority leaders.88

Th e Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the 

Committee on House Administration, because of their role 

on the Committee, also serve on other congressional committees and boards, such as the Joint Committee on Printing, 

the Joint Committee on the Library, and the House of Representatives Fine Arts Board. Illustrations of the jurisdictional 

relationships of the Committee on House Administration 

with some of these entities appear in this section.

Appropriations Committee. After the Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1946 took eff ect in the 80th Congress 

(1947–1948), the House Appropriations Committee noted the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration in the 

FY 1948 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Th e Appropriations Committee stated that committee staff funding, 

except for that of the Appropriations Committee, was made 

available “in such amounts and under such regulations as may 

be approved by the Committee on House Administration.”89

Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee. In the 1946 

Legislative Reorganization Act, the House Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service Committee was given jurisdiction over “Status 

of offi cers and employees of the United States, including their 

compensation, classifi cation, and retirement.” Th is jurisdiction included compensation and benefi ts for Members of 

Congress, offi cers of Congress, and congressional employees, 

with the Committee on House Administration, through 

rules of the House and statute, having related jurisdiction 

over job descriptions, salary schedules, and other matters for 

House offi cers and employees and other legislative branch 

employees, such as those of the Capitol Police or the Architect 

of the Capitol.

In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, which 

became eff ective at the beginning of the 94th Congress (1975–

1976), the Committee on House Administration’s jurisdiction over the Hatch Act was transferred to the Post Offi ce 

and Civil Service Committee.90 With the convening of the 

94th Congress, the House gave the Committee on House 

Administration shared jurisdiction with the Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service Committee over measures relating to the compensation, retirement, and benefi ts of Members, offi cers, and 

employees, which had largely been within the sole jurisdiction 

of the Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee.91

At the beginning of the 104th Congress, jurisdiction 

over the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 

Standards was transferred to the House Oversight Committee from the Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee, 

which was not reconstituted.92

Rules Committee. A significant challenge to the 

Committee on House Administration’s jurisdiction arose 

in the 89th Congress (1965–1966) when the Rules Committee briefl y asserted its authority to establish spending 

limits in resolutions authorizing other House committees’ 
60 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

investigations.93 Concern by the Chairman of the Rules 

Committee over the rising costs of House committees’ 

investigations led to the challenge to the Committee on 

House Administration’s exclusive jurisdiction over committee spending authorizations. On January 28, 1965, the 

Committee on House Administration agreed to a committee resolution asserting its jurisdiction, under the rules 

of the House and 2 U.S.C. sec. 95, and transmitted the 

resolution to the Rules Committee.94

On February 2, 1965, the Rules Committee reported 

several House resolutions authorizing specifi c investigations 

by specifi c committees. Th e Rules Committee, however, also 

proposed amendments to some of the resolutions setting a 

limit on spending authorizations for these investigations. 

When several of the resolutions were considered by the House 

on February 16, the Rules Committee’s amendments were 

deleted at the initiative of the Rules Committee Chairman. 

In a fl oor statement, Rules Committee Chairman Howard W. 

Smith conceded the Committee on House Administration’s 

jurisdiction, while asking his colleagues on the Committee on 

House Administration to hold down committees’ investigative costs, which he said had increased by $1 million in each 

of the preceding six Congresses.95

Ethics Committee. In the 91st Congress (1969–1970), 

the House transferred some jurisdiction over campaign 

fi nance to the Standards of Offi cial Conduct (now Ethics) 

Committee from the Committee on House Administration. 

Th e Committee on Offi cial Conduct was given jurisdiction 

over: “Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 

campaign contributions for candidates for the offi ce of Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident 

Commission to the United States from Puerto Rico.”96 Th e 

jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, 

however, was not amended, giving it and the ethics committee overlapping jurisdiction. Questions seeking to clarify 

the intent of the resolution, which also covered lobbying, 

raised during debate, were largely unanswered, other than 

the fl oor managers noting that this resolution related to the 

larger set of reorganization recommendations made by the 

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.

When the 94th Congress (1975–1976) convened, the 

House agreed to rules changes that included deleting the Standards of Offi cial Conduct Committee’s jurisdiction over campaign fi nance related to House candidates and returning the 

jurisdiction fully to the Committee on House Administration.97

Endnotes

1 Th e contingent fund may be thought of as the cumulative set of 

House decisions to spend money for specifi c purposes, those decisions having been made by the Committee on House Administration or the House. Such decisions were normally made through a 

committee action, such as a resolution or order, or through House 

action on a resolution or on a measure enacted into law. Funding for 

the contingent fund was contained in appropriations acts.

2 Congress had previously established a Joint Committee on the 

Disposition of Executive Papers to review schedules of executive 

documents proposed for disposal. Th e joint committee was to comprise two Senators and two Representatives, with the Representatives being members of the House Committee on the Disposition 

of Executive Papers, a committee superseded by the House Administration Committee. P.L. 115, sec. 4, 57 Stat. 381 (July 7, 1943).

3 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 825-

826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

4 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 838 

(Aug. 2, 1946).

5 Mutual Security Act of 1954, P.L. 665, sec. 502, 68 Stat. 850 

(Aug. 26, 1954).

6 Mutual Security Act of 1958, P.L. 85-477, sec. 401(a), 72 Stat. 

268 (June 30, 1958).

7 House Employees Position Classifi cation Act, P.L. 88-652, 78 

Stat. 1079-1084 (Oct. 13, 1964).

8 “Referral of Resolution [H. Res. 640],” Congressional Record, vol. 

112, 89th Cong. 2nd sess., Feb. 7, 1966, p. 2373; and U.S. Congress, 

House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of 

Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 453.

9 “To Create a Committee on the House Restaurant [H. Res. 

472],” Congressional Record, vol. 115, 91st Cong. 1st sess., July 10, 

1969, pp. 19080–19081.

10 “To Create a Select Committee to Regulate Parking on the 

House Side of the Capitol [H. Res. 282],” Congressional Record, vol. 

115, 91st Cong. 1st sess., March 13, 1969, p. 6441.

11 Federal Contested Election Act, P.L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284-285 

(Dec. 5, 1969).

12 “Lobby Practices and Political Campaign Contributions Aff ecting the House of Representatives [H. Res. 1031],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 116, 91st Cong. 2nd sess., July 8, 1970, pp. 23136–23141.
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 61

13 Government Records Disposal, P.L. 91-287, sec. 2, 84 Stat. 

321-322 (June 23, 1970).

14 “Providing Funds for Computer Services for the House of Representatives [H. Res. 601],” Congressional Record, vol. 117, 92nd

Cong. 1st sess., Nov. 9, 1971, pp. 40015–40017.

15 “Expenditures From Contingent Fund for Allowances to Members, Offi cers, and Standing Committees [H. Res. 457],” Congressional Record, vol. 117, 92nd Cong. 1st sess., July 21, 1971, pp. 26446–

25451. Made permanent law in the Supplemental Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 1972, P.L. 92-184, 85 Stat. 636 (Dec. 15, 1971).

16 “Creating a Select Committee on the House Restaurant [H. 

Res. 317],” Congressional Record, vol. 117, 92nd Cong. 1st sess., March 

25, 1971, pp. 7961–7962. Made permanent law in the Legislative 

Appropriations Act, 1972, P.L. 92-51, 85 Stat. 133 (July 9, 1971).

17 Department of State Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973, 

P.L. 93-126, sec. 5(3), 87 Stat. 452 (Oct. 18, 1973).

18 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of 

Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pt. 2, pp. 

1864–1878.

19 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of 

Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pt. 2, pp. 

1865, 1869–1870, 1874–1875, 1878.

20 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1975, 94th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 14, 1975, pt. 1, pp. 4, 6–7.

21 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1975, 94th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 14, 1975, pt. 1, pp. 4, 6–7.

22 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of 

Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pt. 2, pp. 

1874, 1878.

23 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of 

Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pt. 2, pp. 

1874, 1878.

24 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of 

Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pt. 2, pp. 

1869–1870, 1878.

25 To Establish a Commission on Administrative Review in the 

House of Representatives [H. Res. 1395],” Congressional Record, vol. 

122, 94th Cong. 2nd sess., July 1, 1976, pp. 21788–21807.

26 “Providing for Consideration of House Resolution 1372, to 

Limit Authority of House Administration to Fix and Adjust Allowances,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, 94th Cong. 2nd sess., July 1, 

1976, pp. 21807–21825. Made permanent law in the Legislative 

Appropriations Act, 1977, P.L. 94-440, sec. 101, 90 Stat. 1448 

(Oct. 1976).

27 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1976), pp. 25–30.

28 International Security Assistance Act of 1978, P.L. 95-384, sec. 

22, 92 Stat. 742 (Sept. 25, 1978).

29 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1977, 95th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1977, pt. 1, pp. 6–8.

30 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1977, 95th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1977, pt. 1, pp. 6–8.

31 “House Beauty Shop Employee Benefi ts [H. Res. 315],” Congressional Record, vol. 123, 95th Cong. 1st sess., Nov. 1, 1977, pp. 

36298–36303, 36343–36344.

32 “Continuing the Work of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations By Establishing a Select Committee of the House 

to Perform the Functions of Such Joint Committee for the House 

[H. Res. 420],” Congressional Record, vol. 123, 95th Cong. 1st sess., 

March 28, 1977, pp. 9247–9257.

33 “Providing Funds for Further Expenses of Committee on House 

Administration [H. Res. 268],” Congressional Record, vol. 125, 96th

Cong. 1st sess., June 20, 1979, pp. 15707–15709.

34 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, P.L. 96-482, 

sec. 22, 94 Stat. 2347 (Oct. 21, 1980).

35 “Providing for Limited Continuation of Pay of Clerical Assistance to Members in Certain Cases of Termination of Service [H. 

Res. 804],” Congressional Record, vol. 126, 96th Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 

2, 1980, p. 28978; and U.S. Congress, House, Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Bill, 1982, report to accompany H.R. 4120, 97th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 97-170 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 17. 

Made permanent in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 1982. P.L. 

97-51, sec. 101(c); 95 Stat. 959 (Oct. 1, 1981).

36 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1983, 98th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1983, pt. 1, pp. 5–6.

37 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H. Res. 611],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 128, 97th Cong. 2nd sess., Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28119.

38 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 7],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1985, 99th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1985, pp. 6–8.

39 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1987, 100th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 6, 1987, pp. 5–7.

40 Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act, P.L. 100-696, sec. 1001, 102 

Stat. 4611 (Nov. 18, 1988).

41 Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act, P.L. 100-696, sec. 1001, 102 

Stat. 4608 (Nov. 18, 1988).

42 “House of Representatives Employment Practices [H. Res. 

558],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1988, 100th Cong. 

2nd sess., Oct. 3, 1988, pt. 2, pp. 1840, 1878–1879. Th is resolution was also made eff ective in the 101st Congress. “Providing for 

the Continuation of Provisions of the Fair Employment Practices 

Resolution [H. Res. 15],” Congressional Record, vol. 135, 101st Cong. 

1st sess., Jan. 3, 1989, p. 85.

43 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 3],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1989, 101st Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1989, pt. 1, pp. 6–8.

44 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 3],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1989, 101st Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1989, pt. 1, pp. 6–8.
62 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

45 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, P.L. 101-163, 

sec. 317; 103 Stat. 1067 (Nov. 21, 1989). In 1990, spending of 

appropriated funds for franked mail was made subject to specifi c 

regulation by the House Administration and Senate Rules and 

Administration Committees. Th e postmaster general was directed 

to report on individual Member’s spending for franked mail, and 

the Postal Service, in consultation with the House Administration 

and Senate Rules and Administration Committees, was prohibited 

from delivering franked mail in excess of a Member’s allocation. 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991, P.L. 101-520, sec. 

311(b); 104 Stat. 2279 (Nov. 5, 1990). An Offi cial Mail Allowance 

was established in the House for Members, offi cers, and employees 

entitled to use the frank, subject to regulations promulgated by the 

Committee with respect to the allocation and expenditures relating 

to the allowance and to regulations promulgated by the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards relating to matters under 

39 U.S.C. sec. 3210(a)(6)(D). P.L. 101-520, sec. 311(e); 104 Stat. 

2279-2280 (Nov. 5, 1990).

46 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, P.L. 101-163, sec. 

319; 103 Stat. 1068 (Nov. 21, 1989).

47 “House Administration Reform [H. Res. 423],” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 1992, 102nd Cong. 2nd sess., April 9, 1992, 

pt. 1, pp. 591–599.

48 In the 103rd Congress, the position of Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was recodifi ed into House Rule VI. 

“Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 5, 1993, pt. 1, pp. 4, 9.

49 In the 103rd Congress, the Offi ce of Inspector General was 

recodifi ed into House Rule VI, and the chair and ranking minority member of the House Administration Committee were listed 

among other entities to receive reports of audits and fi nancial 

irregularities. “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 5, 1993, 

pt. 1, pp. 4, 9.

50 In the 103rd Congress, the House clarifi ed notifi cation requirements in the event of a tie vote in the subcommittee. Notifi cation 

was to be made to the Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, 

and chair and ranking minority member of the House Administration Committee. “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5,” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 5, 1993, 

pt. 1, pp. 4, 9.

51 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1991, 102nd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1991, pt. 1, pp. 5, 9. 

Th e Fair Employment Practices Resolution was codifi ed as Rule LI 

in the 103rd Congress. “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal 

of the House of Representatives, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 5, 

1993, pt. 1, pp. 5, 9.

52 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Making 

Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1993, conference report and joint explanatory statement 

to accompany H.R. 5427, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1007 

(Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 14.

53 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, P.L. 102-392, sec. 

324; 106 Stat. 1726-1727 (Oct. 1992).

54 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994, P.L. 103-69, sec. 

307; 107 Stat. 710 (Aug. 11, 1993).

55 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994, P.L. 103-69, sec. 

311; 107 Stat. 712 (Aug. 11, 1993).

56 Federal Employees Clean Air Incentive Act, P.L. 103-172, sec. 

2(a); 107 Stat. 1995 (Dec. 2, 1993).

57 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1995, pt. 1, pp. 11–3, 

Jan. 5, 1995, pp. 23–26.

58 Th rough a subsequent Committee on House Oversight order 

and legislation, the Members’ Representational Allowance was created. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, P.L. 104-53, sec. 

314; 109 Stat. 538-539 (Nov. 19, 1995) authorized the Committee 

on House Oversight to combine Members’ individual allowances 

into a single allowance, the Members’ Representational Allowance 

(MRA) and to promulgate regulations. House of Representatives 

Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, 

sec. 101, 110 Stat. 1719 (Aug. 20, 1996) established the Members’ 

Representational Allowance, subject to regulations promulgated by 

the House Oversight Committee.

59 Th e Chief Administrative offi cer was later directed to issue a 

semiannual report on disbursements, with such additional information that the House Oversight Committee might direct to be 

included. House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act. P.L. 104-186, sec. 106; 110 Stat. 1722-1723 

(Aug. 20, 1996).

60 See 2 U.S.C. sec. 501. Conforming statutory references were 

made in P.L. 104-14, sec. 1; 109 Stat. 187 (June 3, 1995).

61 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 15, 18, Jan. 

5, 1995, pt. 1, pp. 23–26.

62 Congressional Accountability Act. P.L. 104-1, Title III, sec. 

301-305; 109 Stat. 24-32 (Jan. 23, 1995).

63 Congressional Accountability Act. P.L. 104-1, sec. 301(i), 109 

Stat. 26 (Jan. 23, 1995).

64 House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, sec. 101-103; 110 Stat. 1719–1720 

(Aug. 20, 1996).

65 House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, sec. 102; 110 Stat. 1719–1720 (Aug. 

20, 1996).

66 House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, sec. 104; 110 Stat. 1720–121 (Aug. 

20, 1996).
 JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE 63

67 House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, sec. 105; 110 Stat. 1721–1722 (Aug. 

20, 1996).

68 House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, sec. 107; 110 Stat. 1723 (Aug. 20, 

1996).

69 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1966, P.L. 104-53, sec. 

313; 109 Stat. 538–539 (Nov. 19, 1995).

70 Legislative Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-197, sec. 314; 110 

Stat. 2415 (Sept. 16, 1996).

71 Legislative Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-197, sec. 308; 

110 Stat. 2413-2414 (Sept. 16, 1996).

72 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1999, 106th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 6, 1999, pt. 1, pp. 9, 

34–35.

73 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, P.L. 106-554, App. B 

H.R. 5657, sec. 103; 114 Stat. 2763A-101 (Dec. 21, 2000).

74 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 2001, 107th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 2001, pt. 1, pp. 5, 7–8.

75 “Rules of the House [H.Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 2001, 107th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 2001, pt. 1, pp. 5, 7–8.

76 Help America Vote Act, P.L. 107-252, sec. 214, 116 Stat. 1680 

(Oct. 29, 2002).

77 Help America Vote Act, P.L. 107-252, sec. 601(a), 116 Stat. 

1718–1719 (Oct. 29, 2002).

78 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Congressional Record, vol. 149, 

108th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 7, 2003, pp. 12, 20–21.

79 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Div. G, 

sec. 1008(d); 118 Stat. 3183 (Dec. 8, 2004).

80 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Div. G, 

sec. 108; 118 Stat. 3177 (Dec. 8, 2004).

81 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Div. G, 

sec. 107; 118 Stat. 3176 (Dec. 8, 2004).

82 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Twelfth Congress, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 111-157 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 453–456.

83 Offi cial Reporters and News Media Galleries.

84 Reference is to the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over construction and maintenance.

85 Reference is to the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over construction and maintenance.

86 Related provisions appear in Rule II, Other Offi cers and Offi -

cials. U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Twelfth Congress, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 111–157 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 643, 493–495.

87 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Twelfth Congress, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 111-157 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 401–405, 453–456, 940–941.

88 See 2 U.S.C. §2001.

89 Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1948, P.L. 197; 61 Stat. 

367 (July 17, 1947).

90 “Committee Reform [H. Res. 988],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1974, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., Oct. 8, 1974, pp. 1875, 1878.

91 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1975, 94th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 14, 1975, pp. 4, 6–7.

92 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 15, 27.

93 Th e Rules Committee’s jurisdiction included “directing [committees] to make investigations.” Rule XI, cl. 16, sec. 717, parliamentarian’s notes. U.S. House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules and Practice of the House of Representatives, 89th Congress, H. 

Doc. 374, 88th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965).

94 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives: Policies, Precedents, and Procedures Including Related 

Statistical Information (Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), Comm. Print, 89th 

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965), p. 67.

95 Th e Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives: Policies, Precedents, and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information (Jan. 1947-Jan. 1966), p. 67, “Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, 

89th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 2, 1965, p. 1858; and Rep. Howard Smith, 

“Creating a Select Committee on Small Business,” remarks in the 

House, Congressional Record, vol. 111, 89th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 

1965, pp. 2700–2701.

96 “Lobby Practices,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1970,

91st Cong. 2nd sess., July 8, 1970, pp. 725–726.

97 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 5],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1975, 94th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 14, 1975, pp. 4, 6–7.

FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 65

I V. FEDER A L EL EC T ION A ND VOT I NG L AWS: 

PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTORAL PROCESS

Among the many important responsibilities of the Committee 

on House Administration is its role in reviewing the nation’s 

voting process. Since its establishment, the Committee has 

been at the forefront of signifi cant statutory changes designed 

to protect and perfect the nation’s electoral processes. 

These have included adoption in 1962 of the 24th

Amendment to eliminate the poll tax, after nearly 15 years 

of related legislative activity, and, more recently, the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002, enacted in the aftermath of the 

contested presidential election of 2000. Historically, the 

Committee has had a hand in shaping legislation that touches 

on any and all aspects of federal elections. Issues concerning 

corrupt practices, contested congressional elections, campaign fi nance disclosures, and credentials and qualifi cations 

of House Members also fall under its purview.

The Committee provides oversight for virtually all 

aspects of federal elections, including voting qualifi cations, 

election administration, corrupt election practices, and campaign fi nance. Th e Committee is also responsible for ensuring 

that federal elections remain democratic and transparent. 

Over the six decades since it was established, the 

Committee has taken a keen interest in improving the voting process for members of the military and their families, 

and American citizens living abroad. Th e Committee has 

been instrumental in the many improvements enacted during that time for military and overseas voters, beginning 

with the 1950 amendments to the Servicemen’s Voting 

Act and continuing up to the enactment of the Military 

and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009. Other 

important and far-reaching legislation championed by 

the Committee includes the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (1972), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 

Handicapped Act (1984), the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act (1986), the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993, and the Bipartisan Campaign 

Finance Act of 2002.

Another key responsibility is the Committee’s role as 

fi nal authority on House elections and Member credentials 

and qualifi cations. Under the Constitutional proscription 

that says “Each House shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns 

and Qualifi cations of its own Members,”1

 the Committee is 

responsible for resolving contested elections.

As the chief overseer of election and voting laws in the 

U.S. House of Representatives, throughout its history the 

Committee has played a vital role in the nation’s democratic 

process. Th e numerous improvements to the voting process 

that have been enacted during the Committee’s tenure, and 

its vigilant oversight of the performance of those laws, has 

helped ensure the continued success of democracy in the 

United States.

Th e Poll Tax

Origins and Development

In the early years of the Republic, many states limited the vote 

to adult males who owned property or paid taxes, according 

to the colonial era tradition, or who paid a “poll tax” to be 

eligible. Th ese restrictions slowly disappeared as the result of 

westward expansion, the growth of cities, and other democratizing forces. In the 19th century, the franchise expanded to 

include an increasingly large proportion of the white adult male 

population in the 19th century. Th e poll tax disappeared entirely 

prior to the Civil War, but it was revived in the South following 

Reconstruction as a means of disenfranchising former slaves 

and their descendants and reasserting white political control. 

Mississippi and Tennessee enacted poll tax requirements for 

voting in 1890, followed by South Carolina in 1895, Virginia 

and Alabama in 1901, Texas in 1903, and Arkansas in 1908.2
66 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

In the years immediately after World War II, opposition 

to the poll tax became a focal point of the emerging civil rights 

movement. When intimidation and violence failed to dissuade 

would-be voters, the poll tax was arbitrarily applied to guarantee disenfranchisement of specifi c individuals. As a formal, 

government-sanctioned obstacle, the poll tax, like literacy tests, 

was perceived to be particularly egregious by movement leaders, returning veterans, and civil rights supporters. 

Role of Committee

Th e Committee on House Administration addressed the poll 

tax issue immediately upon its organization in the 80th Congress (1947–1948). In the three Congresses preceding the 

80th, the House had passed legislation prohibiting the poll 

tax in federal elections, but the Senate had taken no action, 

largely due to opposition from Southern Democrats. Within 

six months of its establishment, the Committee held nine days 

of hearings between July 1 and July 15, 1947, on legislation to 

eliminate the poll tax.3 On July 16, the Committee reported 

H.R. 29 (80th Congress), which prohibited states from imposing a poll tax as a condition for voting in primary or general elections for federal offi ces.4

 Committee members who 

opposed the legislation believed that Congress did not have 

the authority to “interfere with the election laws” of the various 

states because Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution left the 

determination of voting qualifi cations to the states.5 Th e six 

Members who voted against reporting the bill, all Southern 

Democrats, noted in their minority views on the Committee’s 

report that: “We reiterate our unalterable opposition to Federal 

legislation to abolish the poll tax as an unwarranted assumption of legislative power not granted in the Constitution.”6

Th e House took up the bill on July 21 and there followed a 

heated, though limited, debate. Representative George Bender 

of Ohio, a Committee member and sponsor of the legislation, 

noted that the “poll tax, as it exists in seven Southern States 

today, is not a tax as we ordinarily understand the term. It was 

not imposed—and is not collected—as a source of revenue. It 

is a device for disenfranchising voters.” On the issue of constitutionality, Bender remarked:

I must point out that this body has three times 

passed such a bill by an overwhelmingly favorable 

vote. Surely my colleagues on those occasions recognized the clear constitutionality of the bill they 

were voting for. I know that the Committee on 

House Administration and its Subcommittee on 

Elections, which this month reported the bill favorably to us after extensive hearings, had heard the 

constitutional question discussed in detail and were 

convinced of the validity of the arguments that the 

bill is constitutional.7

Th e House passed the bill by a 290-to-112 vote the same 

day.8 Although the Senate had not taken action on previous 

House-approved bills to eliminate the poll tax in 1942, 1943, 

and 1945, a subcommittee of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee reported H.R. 29 in February 1948, 

although no hearings were held. As the result of an objection 

by Senator John Stennis of Mississippi, the full committee 

held hearings during March at which six Senators and several 

House Members testifi ed. Th e Committee reported the bill 

on April 28. A motion to consider H.R. 29 was off ered on 

July 29, which led to a fi libuster by opponents that ended on 

August 4 without further action on the bill.9

Th e Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections again held extensive hearings on legislation 

to ban the poll tax during the 1st session of the 81st Congress 

(1949–1950), as 11 bills and a constitutional amendment 

were introduced. Representative Brooks Hays of Arkansas 

introduced H.J. Res. 214 (81st Congress) to ban the poll tax 

by constitutional amendment, which marked a new strategy 

to eliminate the poll tax and was referred only to the Committee on the Judiciary. While defending the poll tax as a 

“reasonable exercise of States’ rights,” Hays noted that his 

fellow southerners had not “won many adherents and that 

the rest of the country wants the seven States retaining the 

tax to get rid of it.”10

Between May 2 and June 9, 1949, the Subcommittee 

on Elections held 14 days of hearings on the various bills 

to repeal the poll tax, including H.R. 3199, sponsored by 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 67

Committee Chairwoman Mary Norton.11 On June 9, the 

Subcommittee voted 4 to 3 on a motion off ered by Omar 

Burleson of Texas to delay further action on H.R. 3199 

while the Judiciary Committee considered the Hays constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 214). On June 24, the full 

Committee voted 11 to 7 to report H.R. 3199, as amended, 

the Subcommittee’s previous vote notwithstanding.12 On 

the question of whether a constitutional amendment was 

necessary—the central point of debate for several years 

previous—the report noted that Section 4 of Article 1 of the 

Constitution provides that the state legislatures shall prescribe the “times, places, and manner” of choosing Members 

of the U.S. House and Senate, but that Congress “may at 

any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to 

the places of choosing Senators.”13

Chairwoman Norton brought the measure to the fl oor 

under a new rule adopted at the beginning of the 81st Congress (1949–1950). Th e rule permitted a committee chair 

to bring a bill directly to the fl oor if it was reported by the 

committee of jurisdiction and not acted upon by the Rules 

Committee within 21 calendar days.14 Despite a series of 

delaying tactics, H.R. 3199 was brought to the fl oor on July 

25. Chairwoman Norton, in her opening statement on the 

measure, pointed out that similar bills had been adopted by 

the House in each of the four previous Congresses, and the 

repeal of the poll tax was included in both party platforms 

in 1948. She went on to say that it was impossible for her “to 

understand, in this country of ours, which is supposed to provide equal rights to its citizenry, we can eliminate a great body 

of our citizens from having a say in their own government.”15

Th en, taking up the opponents’ contention that such 

legislation was unconstitutional, Chairman Norton pointed 

out that, on each of the four occasions the House had passed 

a similar bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was 

“composed entirely of lawyers,” had “reported the House 

bill to be constitutional.” Also, at 1948 Senate hearings on a 

similar bill, a “document signed by nine distinguished professors of law” had been presented “affi rming the constitutional 

power of Congress to outlaw the poll tax by statute.” Norton 

concluded by urging her House colleagues to “unite before 

the world on the great principle of democracy and prove 

that we are sincere by abolishing the poll-tax requirement 

on voting so all Americans will have the right to vote for the 

candidates they wish to represent them.”16

During the ensuing debate, opponents once more 

invoked the argument that the legislation was unconstitutional and an unwelcome intrusion into the public aff airs 

of southern states. Representative Harry J. Davenport of 

Pennsylvania suggested that the poll tax was itself unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and that enforcement 

of its provisions would reduce the number of Representatives 

elected to Congress from the seven poll tax states. Quoting 

from a Chicago Sun article published several years earlier, 

Davenport pointed out that:

He [Senator Danaher, of Connecticut] stole the 

show at the fi nal Senate committee hearing on 

the anti-poll-tax bill by calmly suggesting that it 

might be a good idea, since the Constitution has 

been so rapturously invoked, to enforce the 14th

Amendment. . . . It provides that when any State 

abridges the right to vote (as eight Southern States 

do, by means of the poll tax) its congressional representative shall be reduced accordingly. Strict 

enforcement of this amendment demands that 

Congress cut down the number of Representatives 

elected by each poll-tax State.17

Several attempts to amend the bill by limiting its scope 

were unsuccessful. Subsequently, Representative Robert Hale 

off ered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee, 

with instructions to report a joint resolution banning the poll 

tax by Constitutional amendment. On a point of order, the 

instructions were ruled non-germane, and the House voted 

on a simple motion to recommit the bill, which failed on a 

123 to 267 vote. Th e House then passed H.R. 3199 on a 273 

to 116 vote. Passage of H.R. 3199, marked the fi fth time the 

House had approved legislation to eliminate the poll tax in 

the 1940s.18 As in the four previous occasions, the Senate 
68 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

did not act on the bill. A Senate Judiciary subcommittee had 

approved S.J. Res. 34 to ban the poll tax by constitutional 

amendment on May 23, but the full Judiciary Committee 

postponed consideration of it indefi nitely on June 2.19

During the next five Congresses (82nd–86th Congresses, 1951–1960), a number of bills to prohibit the poll 

tax were introduced and referred to the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Elections, but no 

further action occurred.

A bill to ban the poll tax was again introduced in the 

House and referred to the Committee on House Administration in the 87th Congress (1961–1962), but by then the widely 

held opinion was that the poll tax should be eliminated by 

constitutional amendment. On March 27, 1962, the Senate 

approved S.J. Res. 29 to ban the poll tax by constitutional 

amendment.20 When the House received this resolution, 

it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary rather 

than the Committee on House Administration. On May 15, 

the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S.J. Res. 29 and 

reported the resolution without amendment on June 13.21

Th e House approved the measure on August 27, by a 294 

to 86 vote,22 and was then sent to the states for ratifi cation. 

Ratifi cation was completed on January 23, 1964, when the 

legislature of South Dakota became the thirty-eighth state to 

approve the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.23

Voting for the Armed Forces and Citizens 

Abroad

Origins and Development

During World War II, nearly 20 percent of voting age American voters—an estimated 16.3 million troops—took up arms 

in defense of democracy in locations far removed “from their 

place of voting residence, either in this country or abroad.”24

With such a large percentage of potential voters engaged in 

the war eff ort, Congress felt the need to establish an absentee 

ballot program for members of the military serving overseas.

With the passage of the Soldier Voting Act of 1942, 

members of the armed forces serving during wartime were 

for the fi rst time guaranteed federal voting rights. Th e act: 

(1) allowed members of the armed forces to vote for presidential electors, and candidates for the U.S. Senate and 

House, whether or not they were previously registered and 

regardless of poll tax requirements; (2) provided for the use 

of a postage-free, federal post card application to request an 

absentee ballot; and (3) instructed the Secretary of State to 

prepare an appropriate number of “offi cial war ballots,” which 

listed federal offi ce candidates and, if authorized by the state 

legislature, candidates for state and local offi ce in a particular 

state.25 Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority 

to regulate the administration of federal, but not state and 

local, elections.26

Th e Soldier Voting Act of 1942, however, “had almost no 

impact at all” on the 1942 presidential elections since it was 

enacted on September 16, only weeks before the November 

general election.27 Only 28,000 out of fi ve million soldiers 

overseas voted that year.28

Under congressional war powers, the 1942 law mandated 

procedures so that the states would permit service members 

to vote. When Congress amended the law in 1944, however, 

it merely recommended that states follow such procedures.29

Congressional authority to regulate state voting procedures 

expired when the war ended, as the law noted that its provisions applied “in time of war.”30 In 1946, only minor technical 

changes were made in the law.31

Role of the Committee

Eff orts by the Committee on House Administration to facilitate voting by members of the armed forces and American 

citizens abroad have spanned more than 60 years, since the 

fi rst days of its establishment. To overcome the barriers to participation for persons far away from polling places, the Committee fi rst sought to encourage states to voluntarily provide 

absentee ballots to servicemen in World War II. Over time, 

the Committee pursued permanent solutions to the challenges of time and distance for military voters and required 

states to permit absentee registration and voting by members 

of the armed forces in federal elections. Th ose guarantees 

were eventually extended to the spouses and family members of military personnel, and fi nally, to overseas citizens 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 69

in 1968. In the years since, the Committee has continued 

its commitment to overcoming obstacles for these voters by 

periodically reviewing and improving federal laws on military 

and overseas voting. 

1950 Servicemen’s Voting Act Amendments. In the 

81st Congress (1949–1950), the Committee’s Subcommittee 

on Elections considered several amendments to the 1942 law 

that were designed to ease voting barriers for members of 

the military. Subsequently, the full Committee reported two 

measures: H.R. 9399,32 which required that a postcard application for an absentee ballot be hand delivered, rather than 

simply made available, and H.R. 9455,33 which recommended 

that states reduce the weight of absentee voting materials to 

minimize cost and promote speed of delivery. Th e House 

approved both bills on September 18, 1950, and the Senate 

concurred two days later. President Harry S. Truman signed 

both bills on September 29, 1950.34

Companion bills were introduced in the House and 

Senate in the 82nd Congress (1951–1952) to remedy voting 

problems that arose when certain provisions of the 1942 law 

lapsed following the end of World War II. While some states 

had adopted permanent procedures to facilitate military voting, others had not. Th e proposed bills permitted members of 

the military to vote without registering in person or paying a 

poll tax; and without having to meet unreasonable residency, 

literacy, and educational requirements. Th ey also permitted 

the use of the federal post card ballot application, and called 

for the timely delivery of primary and general election absentee ballots as well as candidate and issue information.

Following Senate passage of its bill (S. 3061, 82nd Congress) on June 20, 1952, Subcommittee on Elections Chairman Omar Burleson of Texas convened hearings on June 26 

and July 1, to consider the Senate bill as well as the House 

companion measure (H.R. 7571), sponsored by House 

Majority Leader John McCormack of Massachusetts.35 A 

message submitted by President Truman for the hearing 

record noted that: “In many States, the laws which facilitated 

voting in 1944 have now expired. Since 1942, Federal statutes 

have affi rmed the right of absent service people to vote, but 

even this basic right may be ignored in some States [this year] 

unless vigorous action is taken.”36 Prior to the hearing, the 

President had asked the American Political Science Association (APSA) to study the military voting problem and make 

recommendations. Th e results of the APSA study, as well as 

the President’s endorsement of the association’s legislative 

recommendations, were also submitted to the Committee.37

All of the APSA’s recommendations were included in the 

House and Senate bills.

Despite the President’s support, the House Subcommittee 

on Elections on July 3 voted to postpone any further action 

on the legislation. Subsequently, on July 5 the Senate adopted 

S. Res. 349, which called for cooperation between the federal 

government and the governors of the states to facilitate voting 

by members of the military in the 1952 elections.38

Th e House Subcommittee on Elections resumed consideration of military voting legislation in the 83rd Congress 

(1953–1954) with a June 25, 1954 hearing on two bills: H.R. 

8917, and S. 1654.39 On July 15, the full Committee reported 

a substitute version of S. 1654, which had already been passed 

by the Senate. Th e House substitute proposed “more comprehensive legislation aff ecting dislocated United States personnel, whether in the armed services or attached to same, or 

whether civilian personnel employed in our foreign establishments.” Th e House reported version superseded “previous 

enactments which prescribed entitlement to vote only in time 

of war.”40 No further action was taken on the proposal by the 

83rd Congress, however, as “the exigencies of the legislative 

schedule precluded obtaining a rule before adjournment” to 

bring the measure to the fl oor.41

Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955. After several 

attempts in previous Congresses to strengthen state laws with 

respect to voting in the armed forces, the Committee, at the 

outset of the 84th Congress (1955–1956), reported H.R. 3406 

to provide for permanent federal voting rights for those in 

the military.42 As the result of a Rules Committee hearing 

on a request to bring the measure to the fl oor, further action 

was suspended while the House Administration Committee considered the bill a second time. On February 18, the 
70 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Committee reported a new bill, H.R. 4048, that repealed 

the 1942 law and, instead, made a series of recommendations to the states on military voting.43 Th e bill incorporated 

aspects of the 1942, 1946, and 1950 laws in recommending 

that the states: (1) accept the federal postcard absentee ballot 

application; (2) provide postage-free balloting materials; (3) 

permit commissioned and certain noncommissioned offi cers 

to administer any required oaths; and (4) make absentee 

ballots available at least 45 days prior to an election. Th e 

measure also called for the states to extend federal voting 

rights to the wives of servicemen, members of the merchant 

marine, and civilians serving with the armed forces. H.R. 

4048 was brought to the House fl oor, debated briefl y, and 

passed by a voice vote on February 24. Th e Senate Rules 

Committee reported the bill on June 17 and the full Senate 

passed an amended version of the bill by a voice vote on July 

20. Subsequently, on July 29 the House disagreed with the 

Senate amendments and asked for a conference. Th e Senate 

agreed to the conference report on August 1, and the House 

concurred the following day. Th e bill was signed into law by 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 9, 1955.44

Th e following Congress, the Subcommittee on Elections held an August 26, 1960, hearing on H.R. 8432 (86th

Congress, 1959–1960), which would have amended the 1955 

law to require in-hand delivery of registration and absentee 

voting forms by military personnel.45 No further action followed on the legislation.

Broadening Overseas Voting Rights (1968). During 

the 90th Congress (1967–1968), Congress sought to address 

a much broader question related to overseas absentee voting: 

providing voting rights to Americans living abroad who were 

neither in the armed services nor employed by the federal government. On May 14, 1968, the Committee reported H.R. 

8176, which recommended that the states extend absentee 

registration and voting rights to all Americans residing abroad 

temporarily.46 Four days later, the House took up, amended, 

and passed H.R. 8176 by a voice vote.47 It then took up a 

similar Senate passed measure, S. 2884, amended it by substituting the language of H.R. 8176, and passed S. 2884 on 

a voice vote. Th e Senate concurred in the House amendment 

on June 3, 1968.48

That same day, the House took up a related Senate 

passed bill, S. 1581, which stipulated that absentee voting 

postcards had to be “in the hands” of voters no later than 

August 15 before the election for those residing outside the 

United States, and no later than September 15 if they lived 

in the territorial limits of the United States. Th e Committee 

had reported S. 1581, with amendments, on May 14, 1968.49 

Th e House passed S. 1581 on a voice vote on May 20, and the 

Senate approved the bill as amended by the House, on June 3. 

Both S. 1581 and S. 2884 were signed into law by President 

Lyndon B. Johnson on June 18, 1968.50

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975. In its 

continuing eff ort to ensure federal voting rights for American civilians who lived abroad, the House Administration 

Committee held hearings on the issue at the beginning of 

the 94th Congress (1975–1976). On February 25 and 26 

and March 11, 1975, the Committee met to consider H.R. 

3211, sponsored by Representative John H. Dent, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Elections. H.R. 3211 guaranteed 

absentee registration and voting rights for citizens abroad 

who no longer maintained an address in their state of last 

residence, were not in the state on election day, or could not 

provide a specifi c date on which they would return to the 

state. Th e 1968 overseas voting rights amendments recommended, but did not require, states to facilitate voting by 

Americans living abroad. Existing state laws and practices 

had resulted “in the fact that some 750,000 American civilians residing abroad still [were] barred from participating 

in Presidential or Congressional elections. Th ose civilians 

include[d] thousands of businessmen, as well as church 

offi cials, teachers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and other 

professional people serving the interests of their country 

abroad and subject to U.S. tax laws and the other obligations 

of American citizenship.”51

On May 13, 1975, the Senate Rules and Administration 

Committee reported a similar version of the overseas voting 

legislation (S. 95), which the full Senate passed by a voice 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 71

vote two days later. Th e House Administration Committee 

reported an amended version of S. 95 on November 11, which 

guaranteed absentee registration and federal voting rights 

for citizens living overseas, even if they did not maintain a 

residence in a state or did not intend to return to the state.52

Included among the amendments were the anti-fraud penalties set out in H.R. 3211—a $5,000 fi ne and fi ve years in 

prison for providing false information in order to vote. Th e 

Committee deleted a provision in the Senate-passed version stating that the absentee voting rights would not have 

any eff ect on tax liability of overseas voters. Four minority 

members of the Committee believed allowing U.S. citizens 

residing outside the United States to cast an absentee ballot “in the State and in the voting district in which he last 

resided prior to assuming his foreign residence,” exceeded 

the “power of Congress to enact,” and respectively dissented. 

“It is our conclusion,” they wrote, “that Congress may not, 

consistent with the Constitution, extend the right to vote in 

all federal elections to U.S. citizens who are not residents of any 

state.”53 Th e Committee issued a supplemental report on the 

bill on December 3 to comply with Rule XI of House Rules 

that required an estimate of the infl ationary impact on the 

economy even though the bill had no costs associated with 

it.54 On December 10, the House passed S. 95 by a 374 to 

43 vote. Th e Senate concurred on December 18.55 President 

Gerald R. Ford signed the bill into law on January 2, 1976.56

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 Amendments. Th e Committee revisited military and overseas citizens voting rights in the 95th Congress (1977–1978). Th e 

Committee found that despite the enactment of Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-296), and the Overseas 

Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-1203), there 

were still problems. 

Many U.S. citizens residing abroad [still could] 

not exercise their constitutional right to vote in 

Federal elections, or [were] inhibited from doing 

so, because of inconsistent and confl icting laws and 

other impediments imposed by the several States. 

Of substantial concern to the committee was the 

fact that many U.S. citizens residing abroad do not 

vote, or register to vote, because of fear that the 

exercise of the Federal franchise will subject them 

to some form of taxation by the several States.”57

According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of 

overseas citizens following the 1976 election, 50% of those 

who had not voted attributed their decision on concern about 

whether they would be subject to paying state taxes as a consequence.58 Furthermore, there were inconsistencies and confl icting laws in the states that inhibited voting participation, 

as nearly half of the states had failed to enact legislation to 

enfranchise overseas citizens. 

On September 13, 1978, the House Administration Committee reported S. 703, with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. Th e measure had previously been passed by the 

Senate on May 9, 1977. Th e amended bill: (1) reasserted federal 

voting rights for any member of the armed forces, the Merchant 

Marines, or their spouses and dependents who were not covered 

under state law at the time; (2) required that a single postcard 

be designed for military and civilian overseas voters to register 

and request an absentee ballot; and (3) stated that citizens living 

overseas who exercised their right to register and vote absentee 

in federal elections were not liable for payment of any federal, 

state, or local tax. Th e House approved the amended bill by a 

327-to-78 vote on September 19. Th e Senate passed the bill on 

October 13.59 It was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter 

on November 4, 1978.60

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act (1986). Th e issue of military and overseas voting rights 

did not come up again until the 99th Congress (1985–1986) 

when, on March 12, 1986, Elections Subcommittee Chairman Allan B. Swift introduced H.R. 4393. Th e goal of the 

Swift bill was to consolidate the provisions of the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, pertaining to military voters and 

their dependents, and the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights 

Act of 1975, pertaining to citizens abroad. Chairman Swift 

also sought to update the law governing overseas voters by 

removing redundant and obsolete provisions. Th e Committee reported an amended version of the measure on August 7, 
72 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

which included a provision creating a write-in ballot for voters 

who did not receive a regular state absentee ballot within suffi cient time for it to be returned and counted.61 A hearing on 

the write-in ballot provision had been previously held by the 

Subcommittee on Elections on February 6.62

Th e Committee’s intent, its report noted, “[w]as simply to 

update the current law; other than the addition of the write-in 

ballot provision, there [were] only minor substantive diff erences 

between the current law and the provisions of H.R. 4393.”63

Th e House passed the bill by voice vote on August 12, and the 

Senate approved it four days later, also by voice vote. Th e Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act was signed 

into law by President Ronald Reagan on August 28, 1986.64

Modifications Since 2000 Presidential Election.

Following the 2000 presidential election, further improvements were sought in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as a result of controversy 

in Florida surrounding ballots received from military and 

overseas voters. Both the National Defense Authorization Act 

for FY2002, and Help America Vote Act of 2002, included 

provisions concerning military and overseas voting. Also, the 

Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 amended UOCAVA 

to ease the rules for use of the federal write-in ballot in place 

of state absentee ballots.65

Th e Committee was actively involved in House consideration of all three acts. Th e Committee favorably reported 

the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in early December 2001, 

and seven members of the Committee were subsequently 

appointed as House conferees when the bill was considered 

by a conference committee.66 When the FY2002 National 

Defense Authorization Act went to conference, House 

Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois appointed three members 

of the House Administration Committee as conferees for consideration of applicable sections.67 Th e Speaker also appointed 

three members of the Committee as conferees for applicable 

sections of the Defense Authorization Act for FY2005.68

Help America Vote Act of 2002, the FY2002 

National Defense Authorization Act, and the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Th e main 

provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) require states to permit absent 

uniformed services voters, their spouses and dependents, 

and overseas voters who no longer maintain a residence in 

the U.S. to: (1) register absentee (overseas voters are eligible 

to register absentee in the jurisdiction of their last residence), 

and (2) vote by absentee ballot in all elections for federal 

offi ce (including general, primary, special, and runoff elections).69 In addition, UOCAVA recommends that states 

accept the federal write-in absentee ballot for general elections for federal offi ce (provided the voter is registered, has 

made a timely request for a state absentee ballot, the absentee 

ballot has not arrived with suffi cient time to return it, and 

the ballot is submitted from outside the United States or its 

territories).70

UOCAVA also stipulates that voting materials be carried “expeditiously and free of postage.”71 It recommends 

that states accept the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) 

from uniformed services voters, their spouses and dependents, 

and overseas voters to allow for simultaneous absentee registration and to request an absentee ballot.72 While all states 

and territories accept the FPCA, some require the voter to 

submit the state registration form separately in order to be 

permanently registered. Other recommendations in the law 

suggest that states:

• waive registration requirements for military and overseas voters who do not have an opportunity to register 

because of service or residence;

• send registration materials, along with an absentee ballot 

to be returned simultaneously, if the FPCA is not suffi cient for absentee registration;

• expedite the processing of voting materials;

• permit any required oath to be administered by a commissioned offi cer in the military or by any offi cial authorized to administer oaths under federal law or the law of 

the state where the oath is administered;

• assure mailing absentee ballots to military and overseas 

voters at the earliest opportunity; and

• provide for late registration for persons recently separated 

from the military.73
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 73

Th e National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 amended 

UOCAVA to permit a voter to submit a single absentee application in order to receive an absentee ballot for each federal 

election in the state during the year.74 Th e Help America Vote 

Act subsequently amended that section of the law to extend the 

period covered by a single absentee ballot application to the next 

two regularly scheduled general elections for federal offi ce. Th e 

Help America Vote Act also added a new section that prohibits a 

state from refusing to accept a valid voter registration application 

on the grounds that it was submitted prior to the fi rst date on 

which the state processes applications for the year.75

Th e Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act also requires states to accept and process any valid voter 

registration application from an absent uniformed services 

voter or overseas voter if the application is received not less 

than 30 days before the election. Th e Help America Vote Act 

amended that section of the law to require a state to provide 

to a voter the reasons for rejecting a registration application 

or an absentee ballot request.76

In addition to the amendments to UOCAVA mentioned 

above, the Help America Vote Act of 2002: (1) required the 

Secretary of Defense to establish procedures to provide time 

and resources for voting action offi cers to perform voting 

assistance duties; (2) established procedures to ensure a postmark or proof of mailing date on absentee ballots; (3) required 

secretaries of the armed forces to notify members of the last 

day for which ballots mailed at the facility can be expected 

to reach state or local offi cials in a timely fashion; (4) stipulated that members of the military and their dependents have 

access to information on registration and voting requirements 

and deadlines; and (5) required that each person who enlists 

receive the national voter registration form. Also, the Help 

America Vote Act amended the UOCAVA to:

• require states to designate a single office to provide 

information to all absent uniformed services voters and 

overseas voters who wish to register in the state;

• require states to report the number of ballots sent to 

uniformed services and overseas voters and the number 

returned and cast in the election; and

• require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that state 

offi cials are aware of the requirements of the law and to 

prescribe a standard oath for voting materials to be used 

in states that require such an oath.77

Th e Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 also included 

provisions that: (1) required an annual review of the voting 

assistance program and a report to Congress; (2) guaranteed 

state residency for military personnel who are absent because 

of military duty; (3) continued the online voting pilot project 

begun for the 2000 elections; and (4) permitted the use of 

DOD facilities as polling places if they had previously been 

used for that purpose since 1996 or were designated for use 

by December 2000.78

Th e Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 amended 

UOCAVA to permit uniformed services voters to use the 

blank, federal write-in ballot previously available only to 

overseas voters.79

Th e Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 

of 2009 (MOVE Act). In a 2005 hearing on implementation 

of the Help America Vote Act, Ranking Member Juanita 

Millender-McDonald noted that “many overseas and military 

voters reported that they did not receive their ballots in time 

to vote. Some did not receive their ballots at all. We can, and 

must, do better.”80

Following the 2008 presidential election, the Subcommittee on Elections held two hearings in early 2009 to review 

problems that continued to disrupt voting by members of the 

uniformed services and U.S. citizens overseas.81 Th e fi rst hearing, on March 26, 2009, reviewed what went right and wrong 

in all aspects of the 2008 election, with particular attention 

to voting problems encountered by members of the military.

Th e second hearing, on May 21, 2009, focused on the 

obstacles and potential solutions to military overseas voting. 

Th e intent of the hearing was “to provide an opportunity for 

the committee to learn about outreach eff orts of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the hurdles that military 

and overseas voters encounter when they try to vote from 

abroad, and possible policy recommendations to address 

these obstacles.” Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren in her opening 
74 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

statement identifi ed several common problems: “. . . the delivery of election materials to UOCAVA voters, burdensome 

absentee ballot requirements, and varying State requirements 

and deadlines.” She concluded by acknowledging the eff orts 

of “Chairman Brady, who, along with the committee and 

Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren, are dedicated to removing 

these obstacles and ensuring military and overseas voters can 

successfully cast their ballots.” 82

During the hearing, the Subcommittee heard from a 

representative of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at 

the Department of Defense, an Air Force Voting Assistance 

Offi cer, the General Registrar of Fairfax County, Virginia, 

and a retired Marine Corps sergeant and spokesperson for 

Military Voting Rights USA.83

Subsequently, the Committee on October 1, 2009, 

reported H.R. 2393, the Military Voting Protection Act 

of 2009, which had been introduced by Committee and 

Subcommittee on Elections member Representative Kevin 

McCarthy. As reported, H.R. 2393 would have established 

procedures for collecting marked absentee ballots from absent 

uniformed services voters four days prior to a regularly scheduled general election for federal offi ce, and that the ballots be 

transmitted to local election offi cials for counting by United 

States Postal Service express mail. Also, procedures were to 

be implemented that would enable any individual whose 

marked ballot was collected to determine whether the ballot 

has been received by the appropriate State election offi cial.84 

Th is would make it possible for voters to track their ballots 

to be certain they were delivered to the appropriate offi cial. 

Representative McCarthy had introduced a similar bill, H.R. 

5673, in the 110th Congress.

Although the House did not take up H.R. 2393, Congress did enact a military and overseas voting law in 2009 

that included similar provisions.85 Th e Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (S. 1415) was reported in 

the Senate on July 15, 2009, and subsequently added as an 

amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647), which passed the Senate on July 23. Th e House voted in favor of the conference 

report86 on the bill on October 8, and the Senate approved 

it on October 22. It was signed into law by President Barack 

Obama on October 28, 2009.87

Th e Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 

amended UOCAVA to require various changes to improve 

voting for members of the uniformed services and overseas 

citizens. Among the principal changes were provisions that:

• required states to establish procedures to permit absent 

uniformed services voters and overseas voters to request 

voter registration and absentee ballot applications by 

mail and electronically for all federal elections;

• required states to establish procedures to transmit, by 

mail and electronically, blank absentee ballots to absent 

uniformed services voters and overseas voters for federal 

elections;

• required states to transmit a validly requested absentee 

ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter no later than 45 days before an election if the 

request is received at least 45 days before the election;

• required the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures 

to collect marked general election absentee ballots from 

absent overseas uniformed services voters for delivery to 

the appropriate election offi cial;

• broadened the use of the federal write-in absentee ballot for general elections to include special, primary, and 

runoff elections as well;

• prohibited states from refusing to accept an otherwise 

valid voter registration application, absentee ballot application, or marked absentee ballot from an absent uniformed services or overseas voter on the basis of notarization requirements or restrictions on paper or envelope 

type, including size and weight; and

• repealed subsections of the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which 

required states to process an offi cial post card form as 

an absentee ballot request for the next two regularly 

scheduled general elections, if requested by the voter. 

Th e previous requirement resulted in high numbers of 

ballots mailed to military personnel who had moved, 

thereby distorting statistical counts of ballots sent and 

received.88

Th e Military and Voter Overseas Empowerment Act of 

2009 also: (1) made improvements to data collection methods 

on UOCAVA participation, (2) established new requirements 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 75

for reports to Congress, and (3) authorized pilot programs to 

test relevant technology, as well as payments under the Help 

America Vote Act to meet the new requirements.89

Th e Committee’s eff orts to improve the federal voting 

process for military and overseas voters have continued over 

the entire 62-year history of the Committee and into the 

present, yet the barriers that result from being outside the 

United States on election day are not easily overcome. Because 

elections are run at the local level, the interaction between 

voter and election offi cial to register, request, and return an 

absentee ballot are complicated by time and distance. Committee oversight has been a key element in making improvements to UOCAVA to mitigate such inherent barriers to 

full participation by members of the uniformed services and 

citizens abroad.

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly 

and Handicapped

During the 98th Congress (1983–1984), the Committee 

on House Administration Task Force on Elections held a 

series of three hearings that examined the issue of polling 

place accessibility for the elderly and disabled.90 Th e focus 

of the hearings was H.R. 1250, cosponsored by Representatives Hamilton Fish and Douglas Walgren, which called 

for making voter registration sites and polling places fully 

accessible to older voters and those with disabilities. At the 

time, state laws and practices to accommodate elderly or 

disabled voters varied widely, but generally depended upon 

procedures such as absentee registration and voting, the use 

of accessible polling places, curbside voting, and providing 

voter assistance in the polling place. Despite state eff orts 

to improve the registration and voting process for all voters, through laws enacted over the previous 20 years,91 the 

elderly and disabled continued to face special obstacles to 

voting participation. Some states required a certifi cate from 

a physician to vote absentee, for example, while the use of 

curbside voting depended on weather and also sacrifi ced a 

measure of privacy. By the early 1980s, removing barriers 

to voting for the elderly and disabled became a legislative 

priority for the Committee and Congress.

When the Committee began consideration of H.R. 1250 

early in the 98th Congress, a new amendment to the Voting 

Rights Act concerning polling place assistance to handicapped voters had just recently taken eff ect.92 Th e provision 

permitted voters who were blind, disabled, or illiterate to 

choose a person, except for the voter’s employer or an agent 

of their union, to assist them in voting. Moreover, legislation 

similar to H.R. 1250 had been introduced in the preceding 

three Congresses. At the fi rst hearing convened by the Task 

Force, Chairman Al Swift noted that:

[m]any individuals and groups, including those 

in the Coalition of Voter Accessibility, which is 

represented here today, have been actively working 

for some time to move this legislation along. Th ey 

argue, correctly, that the right to vote is among the 

most basic of a citizen’s rights. And it is important 

for us to insure, as much as possible, that that right 

is not denied to anyone who wants to be able to 

participate in Federal elections.93

Th e Task Force examined a variety of issues concerning 

accessibility and polling places, from the perspective of both 

voters and election offi cials. During the three hearings—two 

in Washington and one in Atlanta—the Task Force heard 

from witnesses representing the elderly, disabled, and civil 

rights groups as well as election offi cials from Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and West Virginia.94 Th e last hearing coincided with the annual meeting 

of the advisory board of state and local election offi cials for 

the Federal Election Commission’s National Clearinghouse 

on Election Administration, which “allowed the Committee 

to take advantage of that meeting to discuss H.R. 1250 in 

some detail with the diverse group of state and local election 

offi cials who were in town, and to set up what turned out to 

be a very constructive meeting between a number of those 

offi cials and representatives of the groups in the Coalition for 

Voter Accessibility.”95

As introduced, H.R. 1250 would have required that 

voter registration facilities and polling places be readily accessible to the elderly and disabled during all hours of operation; 
76 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

that enlarged type instructions for registration and voting be 

displayed at the appropriate facilities; that notarization and 

medical certifi cation requirements for elderly and disabled 

absentee voters be no more stringent than for other categories 

of absentee voters; and that public notice be given at polling 

places that elderly and disabled voters could select a person 

to assist them in casting a ballot.

During the course of the hearings, some members 

of the Committee and various state and local officials 

expressed concerns about the diffi culty of fi nding accessible facilities in certain places, such as rural areas, where 

there are fewer public buildings. Testimony also provided 

some insight with respect to election administration emergencies that might preclude using only accessible polling 

places, such as the need to move polling locations at the 

last minute because of a weather emergency. Also, some 

witnesses pointed out that privately owned facilities might 

not be easily modifi ed, even on a temporary basis, and 

some accessible facilities might be unavailable on election 

day or too expensive to rent. Others expressed concern 

about the requirement for jurisdictions to provide printed 

ballots in all voting places for those who would have diffi culty using a voting machine.

Th e Committee reported H.R. 1250 on June 21, 1984, 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Among the 

changes made by the Committee was one that provided for 

two exemptions to the accessibility requirement for all voting 

facilities: (1) if the chief election offi cer of a state determined 

that an emergency existed, such as the need to move polling 

places because of the impact of extreme weather conditions; 

and (2) if a survey by local election offi cials determined that 

no accessible facility could be found, the elderly and disabled 

voters aff ected would be reassigned to the nearest accessible 

polling place. Th e Committee determined that “a reasonable 

number of accessible registration facilities within each election jurisdiction” were needed, rather than requiring that all 

be accessible. Th e Committee reasoned that, in many states, 

those seeking to register could do so at a number of locations, 

in contrast to being assigned to a specifi c polling place. Other 

modifi cations included requiring enlarged type instructions 

and telecommunications devices for the deaf, eliminating 

state requirements for a medical certifi cation or notarization 

to obtain an absentee ballot, and providing that either the 

Attorney General or aggrieved individuals could fi le suit for 

noncompliance.96

Th e House took up H.R. 1250 on June 25, 1984. A key 

issue that arose during debate concerned a requirement that 

allowed for a voter whose own polling place was not accessible to be reassigned to another polling place with disability 

access. Th is clause was prompted by a specifi c requirement in 

some state constitutions that a voter cast a ballot only at their 

assigned polling place. Because the bill mandated compliance 

by December 1985, it was argued that some state constitutions could not be amended within that timeframe because of 

the necessity for legislative approval in two successive general 

assemblies and approval of the amendment by the state’s voters. In response, Representative Hamilton Fish explained that 

this issue was “being dealt with in the Senate. We expect it 

to be taken care of in the Senate bill in an amendment. I am 

sure the House will accept the Senate amendment.”97 Th e 

House passed H.R. 1250 on a voice vote under suspension of 

the rules later that day.98

Next, H.R. 1250 was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules, which favorably reported an amended version 

on August 8.99 Among the amendments to the bill was one 

stating that the act would take eff ect after December 31, 

1985, and another that addressed the problem of inaccessible 

polling places and reassigning voters. Th e latter amendment 

provided for curbside or absentee voting in cases where a 

polling place was not accessible and the voter could not be 

reassigned because of state law. Th e Senate took up the bill the 

following day, and passed it on a voice vote with an amendment on August 10.100

Th e House took up the amended bill on September 12 

and agreed to the Senate’s amendments to H.R. 1250 by 

unanimous consent and passed the bill on a voice vote.101

President Ronald Reagan signed the Voting Accessibility for 

the Elderly and Handicapped Act on September 28, 1984.102
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 77

National Voter Registration Act

Eff orts to establish a national voter registration system followed closely on the heels of passage of the Voting Rights Act 

in 1965. In the early 1970s, a substantial eff ort was made to 

establish a national “postcard” or mail registration system. 

During the 92nd Congress (1971–1972), both the Senate and 

the House held hearings on a proposal to establish a national 

voter registration system, with the Census Bureau conducting postcard registration for federal elections. Th e proposal 

came to the Senate fl oor for a vote but was tabled.103 Although 

other voter registration bills were referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, it took no action on those bills.

Committee Begins Its Involvement

By the 93rd Congress the Committee became involved in 

moving legislation forward that would address an “emerging concern over the steady decline in voter participation in 

our national elections over a number of years.”104 During a 

Subcommittee on Elections hearing in June and July 1973, 

“statistics were off ered by various witnesses to the eff ect that 

voter participation in presidential elections [had] diminished 

from 64% of the voting age population in 1960, to 62.9% in 

1964, to 61.8% in 1968, and most recently, to approximately 

55% in the 1972 presidential race.” Numerous witnesses at 

the hearing “cited studies and opinions of various research 

organizations, civic groups, and other election experts” which 

“tended to establish that the major causes for the lack of voter 

participation in elections [were] the diffi culties and barriers 

to voter registration.”105

Postcard Registration Proposal

On February 5, 1974, several months after the hearings, the 

Committee favorably reported H.R. 8053, which sought to 

establish within the U.S. Census Bureau a Voter Registration 

Administration that would be responsible for implementing a 

system of postcard voter registration for federal elections. Th e 

Committee felt that the registration system outlined in the 

bill would “retain the necessary degree of local control over 

election procedures and [would] assure substantial safeguards 

to protect against voter fraud while providing for the greater 

needed reform to simplify registration procedures that [would] 

encourage increased voter participation in the electoral process.”106 Th e House on May 8, 1974, however, refused to take 

up the bill by rejecting the rule under which the measure was 

to be debated on the fl oor by a vote of 197 to 204.107

During the 94th Congress (1975–1976), the Committee 

in April and May 1975 held hearings on a modifi ed version 

of the postcard voter registration measure, which called for 

the creation of a Voter Registration Administration within 

the Federal Elections Commission. H.R. 1686 eliminated 

the required mass mailing of postcards to every household 

and instead provided that registration postcards be made 

available at post offi ces and other public offi ces. Th e Committee favorably reported H.R. 1686 in mid-November 1975. 

Although no further action was taken on H.R. 1686, the 

Committee approved a similar bill (H.R. 11552), which the 

House subsequently passed on August 9, 1976, by a 239 to 

147 vote. Th e 94th Congress concluded with the Senate taking 

no action on H.R. 11552.108

Election Day Registration Proposal

Th e following March, President Jimmy Carter sent Congress 

fi ve recommendations for reforms in the nation’s election 

system. “Th e most innovative part of his recommendations,” 

in the opinion of Congressional Quarterly, “was the Universal 

Voter Registration Act, a bill that would simplify registration 

and add millions of voters in federal elections. Th e proposal 

fulfi lled one of the commitments made by Carter during his” 

presidential campaign the previous fall.109 Th e same day, the 

Universal Voter Registration Act was introduced in both the 

House (H.R. 5400) and in the Senate (S. 1072). Th e proposed 

legislation required “each State and unit of local government 

to permit any eligible individual to register and vote at the 

appropriate polling place on the day of any Federal election.” 

H.R. 5400 (95th Congress, 1976–1977) called for an Administrator of Voter Registration, accountable to the Federal Election Commission, who would coordinate all administrative 

and procedural matters relating to the proposed act. In April 

1977, prior to endorsing H.R. 5400, the Committee held fi ve 

days of hearings on the bill.110
78 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Although the proposal initially appeared to have broad 

backing on Capitol Hill, and the Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration favorably reported its companion bill (S. 

1072), neither chamber took further action on the Universal 

Voter Registration Act. Critics of election day registration 

attacked the concept “on the grounds that it would be an 

invitation to voter fraud.” It was also viewed by many in Congress “as an unnecessary change to an electoral system against 

which they had few complaints.” Th e Carter Administration 

and Democratic leadership in an unsuccessful eff ort to generate more support for the proposal “agreed to a series of concessions, concluding with one to make the whole plan optional.” 

Support in Congress, however, continued to decline as the 

proposal was further undermined by negative reactions from 

local election offi cials.111

Proposed Program of Federal Assistance to the States 

to Encourage Registration

Th e Committee did not revisit the voter registration issue 

until June 1984, when its Task Force on elections held a 

hearing on the subject. Task Force Chairman Al Swift 

began the proceedings by noting the contribution on the 

topic of a symposium sponsored by American Broadcasting 

Company and Harvard University the previous fall. “Th at 

blue ribbon panel brought together two former Presidents 

of the United States, prominent Members of Congress, 

noted journalists and respected academics to discuss the 

subject of voter registration,” he said. “Th ose symposium 

participants unanimously came to the conclusion that our 

present registration system is a signifi cant barrier to voting 

and that ‘easing the means of voter registration should have 

the highest priority.’”112

“Our hope,” Chairman Swift explained, “is to encourage 

creativity on the part of the States, so that perhaps we can 

work together with them to develop registration systems that 

are eff ective and that are also fl exible enough to accommodate 

the variety of circumstances that exist in local elections in 

this country.”113 H.R. 4367, the legislative vehicle chosen to 

accomplish this goal, sought to establish a program of federal 

assistance to the states to encourage voter registration. Th e 

Committee took no further action on this proposal in the 

98th Congress (1983–1984).

National Voter Registration Reform Proposals

101st Congress. By the 1988 presidential election, voter turnout had reached its lowest point in 40 years, just slightly more 

than 50% of the voting age population. At the beginning of 

the 101st Congress (1987–1988), partly in response to the 

turnout trends, and partly as a continuation of a long-standing eff ort by registration reform proponents, several bills were 

introduced to reform voter registration procedures. For some 

supporters, these eff orts aimed at completing what had been 

started by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments 

by eliminating the fi nal barriers to voting: voter registration 

restrictions. For others, the belief that making it easier to 

register would encourage more voter participation was the 

driving force behind support for voter registration reform.

Th e fi rst “motor-voter” bill (H.R. 15) was introduced at 

the beginning of the 101st Congress by House Administration Committee Chairman Frank Annunzio and Elections 

Subcommittee Chairman Al Swift.114 On March 21, 1989, the 

Committee held a hearing on H.R. 15 and two related bills.115

Th e proposed National Voter Registration Act of 1989 (H.R. 

15) required States to establish procedures for registration 

through the driver’s license application process, registration 

by mail, and registration in government and private sector 

agencies. Th e second bill, the Universal Voter Registration 

Act of 1989 (H.R. 17), sought to establish national standards 

for voter registration, including requirements for registration 

by mail, registration in government and private sector agencies, and registration on election day. Th e third, the Voter 

Participation Act of 1989 (H.R. 87), amended the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for voter mailin registration and election day registration for elections to 

federal offi ce. No further action was taken on H.R. 15, H.R. 

17, or H.R. 87.

In February 1990, however, the House did pass H.R. 

2190, the National Voter Registration Act of 1989, a 

modifi ed version of H.R. 15, which had been introduced 

by House Majority Leader Th omas S. Foley. H.R. 2190 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 79

received bipartisan support, with Representative William M. Th omas, ranking member of the Subcommittee 

on Elections, and Representative Newt Gingrich, House 

Minority Whip, both being among the original cosponsors 

of the bill. Prior to House passage, the House Administration Committee favorably reported the bill on September 

18, 1989.116 H.R. 2190 was never brought up in the Senate. 

S. 874, the Senate companion bill, was favorably reported 

by Committee on Rules and Administration but was eff ectively killed on September 26, 1990, when a Senate fl oor 

vote to cut off debate fell fi ve votes short (55 to 42) of the 

number required.117

102nd Congress. Despite the threat of a presidential veto, 

both the House and Senate passed a “motor voter” bill in 

1992. Th e Senate passed S. 250, the National Voter Registration Act of 1992, on May 20 by a 61 to 38 vote, short of the 

two-thirds needed to override a veto. Th e House considered 

the Senate bill on June 16 and adopted it after rejecting an 

alternative off ered by Representative William M. Th omas, 

ranking minority member of the Committee on House 

Administration, which would have created a $25 million 

block grant program to help states increase voter registration. 

Th e one hour of general debate on the bill was equally divided 

and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member of the Committee on House Administration. Th e 

House passed S. 250 by a vote of 268 to 153, short of the 

two-thirds needed to override a veto.118

President George H.W. Bush vetoed S. 250 on July 2, 

1992, condemning the bill as “an open invitation to fraud.” 

Th e President in his veto message, which was expected, 

said that the bill would “impose unnecessary, burdensome, 

expensive, and constitutionally questionable federal regulation on the states in an area of traditional state authority.” 

Th e legislation would, he argued, “expose the election process to fraud and corruption without any reason to believe 

that it would increase electoral participation to any signifi cant degree.” President Bush did say he would “support 

legislation that would assist the states in implementing 

appropriate reforms in order to make voter registration 

easier for the American public.”119 A Senate attempt to override the President’s veto on September 22, was short (62 to 

38 votes) of the two-thirds needed.120

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 

Th ree months later, during a September 1992 presidential campaign appearance on the Washington Monument 

grounds, William J. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, 

announced that he would support a “motor voter” bill that 

would allow voters to register when they renewed their 

driver’s licenses. On May 20, 1993, after winning the presidency, Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act 

Motor Voter of 1993. The bill signing ceremony on the 

South Lawn at the White House culminated a fi ve-year 

eff ort by supporters of the motor voter legislation aimed 

at boosting voter registration. “Th is bill in its enactment,” 

President Clinton declared, “is a sign of a new vibrancy in 

our democracy.”121

Th e National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (H.R. 2) was 

introduced in the House on January 5, 1993, by Representative 

Al Swift, Chairman of the House Administration Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Elections. Th ree weeks later, the Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing on H.R. 2. While the bill 

diff ered from earlier motor voter proposals in some respects, 

Subcommittee Chairman Swift pointed out at the hearing, 

the “basic concepts of H.R. 2190 [101st Congress] and S. 250 

[102nd Congress] remained the same in this bill.” Although 

the President was now of a diff erent political party and passage of motor voter was likely to be more favorably received at 

the White House, Chairman Swift emphasized this was not 

the purpose of the hearing. Th e intention of the hearing, he 

explained, was twofold. First, he said it should be noted “that 

half of the witnesses were suggested by the Ranking Member, 

something that is not always standard procedure.” Second, a 

“number of States and jurisdictions have been implementing 

provisions of H.R. 2 over the past few years and they now have 

data and practical hands on experience. . . . We are eager to 

hear from these witnesses who have taken part in this process, 

what their experience has been and what advice they can give 

to other States and jurisdictions.”122
80 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

H.R. 2 was favorably reported by the Committee on 

House Administration on February 2, 1993. Two days later, 

the House passed the bill by a 259 to 160 vote. In approving 

the legislation, the “Committee felt that many processing 

systems in place to handle driver’s license application data lent 

themselves naturally to processing a voter registration application. By combining the driver’s license application approach 

with mail and agency based registration, the Committee reasoned that any eligible citizen who wished to register would 

have ready access to an application.”123

On March 17, 1993, following two weeks of fl oor debate, 

the Senate passed H.R. 2 by a vote of 62 to 37, after amending 

the bill and substituting the text of S. 460. Th e Senate vote 

came after a compromise was agreed upon that removed from 

the measure provisions requiring states to provide registration forms at public assistance agencies, such as welfare and 

unemployment disabilities offi ces.124

When the conference committee met to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, 

conferees agreed to accept the House provision that allowed 

for voter registration at public assistance offi ces. New language was added, however, requiring the agencies to make it 

clear that registering to vote was optional and not registering 

would not aff ect the amount of assistance they received. Also, 

a requirement that registration forms be made available at 

unemployment offi ces was dropped as was a requirement for 

a registrant to produce documentation of citizenship upon 

request by election offi cials. Th e conference report on H.R. 

2 was adopted by the House on May 5 and by the Senate on 

May 11, prior to President Clinton affi xing his signature to 

the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.125

Help America Vote Act of 2002

In one of the closest contests in American history, the 2000 

election riveted national attention on its outcome for weeks 

after the voting concluded. Th e unusual circumstance of not 

knowing the winner of the presidential contest as well as the 

exposed fl aws in the nation’s voting system raised concerns 

about the overall integrity of the election system and focused 

intense attention on the issue. In the fi nal weeks before the 

106th Congress (1999–2000) adjourned, numerous bills were 

introduced to begin to address problems that left the presidential contest in doubt until December 12, when the U.S. 

Supreme Court ruled on a 7 to 2 vote that “a violation of the 

Equal Protection Clause” existed because the state of Florida 

did not have a uniform standard for manually recounting 

ballots in diff erent counties.126 Th e Court decided by a 5 

to 4 vote to end further recounting in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia Counties, whereby George 

W. Bush retained a 537 vote margin in the popular vote and 

was awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency.127

Although the Supreme Court’s decision resolved the 

election contest, discussion and debate concerning the 

result and the voting problems that arose in Florida and 

elsewhere continued unabated. Studies were initiated by 

the General Accounting Office (GAO), the California 

Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology jointly, the Constitution Project and many 

others, while study groups were formed or commissioned, 

most notably the National Commission on Federal Election 

Reform, co-chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and 

Gerald R. Ford. 

Role of the Committee

The Committee on House Administration played a central role in the months after the November 2000 election 

when the revealed failings of the voting process commanded 

national attention. Although the Committee had long been 

engaged with issues concerning election administration, the 

intricate details of the voting process were an obscure and 

largely unknown topic for the press and the public. Shortly 

after the 107th Congress (2001–2002) was sworn in, House 

leaders considered establishing a select committee to examine and report election reform legislation, but, according to 

press reports, the parties disagreed on its make-up and the 

concept was abandoned.128 Instead, the leadership agreed to 

rely on the permanent committee system, and principally the 

Committee on House Administration, to consider election 

reform legislation.129
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 81

Among the more than 100 election-related bills introduced in early 2001 was H.R. 775, which Representative 

Steny Hoyer, the Committee’s Ranking Member, introduced 

on February 28, 2001. H.R. 775 called for the establishment 

of a buy-out program for punch card voting machines, a grant 

program to fund election improvements, and an Election 

Administration Commission—a new federal agency that 

would serve as an information clearinghouse and develop best 

practices for election administration. Along with similar bills, 

Representative Hoyer’s proposal marked a turning point in 

considering how to administer federal elections, because, as 

Hoyer later observed at a Committee hearing, “[h]istorically, 

States and local subdivisions have run our elections, but, just 

as well, they have run Federal elections during that process 

without any compensation from the Federal government.”130

Shortly after the Hoyer bill was introduced, the Committee began a series of four hearings on election reform 

to consider the merits of the various proposals. At the second hearing, on May 10, 2001, Chairman Robert W. Ney 

announced in his opening remarks that he and Representative 

Hoyer had reached “an agreement in substance to proceed 

on a piece of legislation together on a bipartisan basis.” Representative Hoyer also mentioned the bipartisan proposal in 

his opening statement, when he referred to their intention to 

cosponsor an “electoral reform measure that recognizes the 

legitimate role Congress can play in modernizing our democracy’s infrastructure without infringing on the rights of States 

and local communities.”131 At both that hearing and an earlier 

hearing on April 25, Committee members heard testimony 

from state and local administrators as well as elections experts 

concerning voting equipment, election procedures, and longstanding budgetary constraints.

During two subsequent hearings, on May 17 and 24, 

Committee members heard from voting equipment vendors 

and experts on voting technology whose testimony focused on 

the cost and logistics of replacing equipment, system design 

and ergonomics, research and development, security issues, 

and error rates for diff erent voting systems.132 Other committees and subcommittees also held hearings on election reform, 

including the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation; the Senate Committee on Governmental 

Aff airs; the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House 

Committee on Armed Services; the House Committee on 

Science; and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which held a series of four hearings.

On November 14, 2001, Representatives Ney and Hoyer 

introduced H.R. 3295. Th e proposal included provisions 

similar to H.R. 775, such as the punch card buyout program, 

an election administration agency, and grant funding. It also 

contained provisions to create a poll worker recruiting program for college students, establish a foundation to encourage 

participation among high school students, provide reduced 

postal rates for election mail, and ease voting problems for 

members of the military and overseas voters. Th e Committee 

reported H.R. 3295 on December 10, with an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute.133 Two days later, the House 

took up the bill.

House Floor Action

At the outset, some Democrats objected to the notion that 

the House would consider H.R. 3295 under a closed rule. In 

response to those objections, Committee Ranking Member 

Hoyer said:

I regret this rule did not allow a substitute, but I 

believe it is important that we pass this bill and pass 

it today. . . . If we pass this rule, I will speak strongly 

on behalf of this bill and hope to see its passage. Th e 

reason that I say that I think it should pass today. . . . 

[is that] I am hopeful that we can do this as quickly 

as possible so that 2002 and certainly 2004 will not 

be a repeat of 2000. Th at election in 2000 ended 

37 days after it began. It ended on this day exactly 

1 year ago. It is appropriate that we act today.”134

Th e House adopted the resolution to consider H.R. 3295 on 

a 223 to 193 vote135 and debate on the bill followed. Speaking 

fi rst, Chairman Ney noted in his remarks that the bill was 

the result of a bipartisan eff ort:
82 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

From the outset of this process, my goal was to craft 

legislation that could be supported by members 

from both sides of the aisle. Th at is critical in this 

process.... Improving our country’s electoral system 

should not and cannot be a partisan issue. Everybody in the United States has the right to vote and 

has to feel secure that their vote counts.136

Following the Chairman’s remarks, Representative 

Hoyer noted that the “legislation is not a magic elixir. However, it will signifi cantly improve the integrity of our election 

process, encourage voter participation and restore public 

confi dence in our system. In short, it is a historic opportunity 

for this House to right the undemocratic wrongs in our election system.”137 Shortly thereafter, on December 12, 2001, the 

House passed H.R. 3295 on a 362 to 63 vote, one year to the 

day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore and 

ended the contested presidential election of 2000.138

Senate Consideration 

As in the House, Senate members introduced a number of 

election reform bills early in the fi rst session of the 107th Congress that took a variety of approaches. Senator Christopher 

Dodd of Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Rules 

Committee, introduced S. 565 in April 2001, and Chairman 

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky introduced S. 953 in May. 

Th e Committee held four hearings on election reform in 

March, June, and July 2001. Th e last three after the chairmanship had switched from McConnell to Dodd, following 

Senator James Jeff ords’ announcement that he was leaving 

the Republican party to become an Independent. Jeff ords’ 

switch gave Democrats a 50-49 partisan advantage in the 

Senate.139 When the Democratic members of the Rules Committee met on August 4 to mark up S. 565, the Republican 

members boycotted the meeting; and the bill was reported140

on a 10 to 0 vote.141

After several months of negotiations, a reworked version 

of election reform legislation was announced on December 

19, 2001, as a substitute amendment to S. 565. Th e Senate took up the bill on February 13, 2002, and agreed to 

the substitute amendment by unanimous consent.142 After 

an additional nine days of consideration during February, 

March, and April, the Senate passed S. 565 as amended on 

a 99 to 1 vote on April 11, then passed H.R. 3295, which 

the House had passed the previous December, on a voice 

vote after substituting the text of S. 565. It then requested 

a conference with the House.143 Th e fi nal compromise version included certain requirements for administering federal 

elections in the states and voter identifi cation requirements 

for fi rst time voters who registered by mail, the two principal 

issues that had stalled Senate deliberations on the bill.

Conference Deliberation and Passage

Conferees were appointed in the Senate on May 1 and in the 

House on May 16, 2002. Th e subsequent conference negotiations spanned nearly six months.144 Although the House and 

Senate bills were broadly similar, they included a number of 

important diff erences, among which are the following: (1) 

both called for the establishment of a new federal agency on 

election administration, but the House version included two 

advisory boards as well, while the Senate version established a 

temporary study commission; (2) the Senate version included 

$3.5 billion for voting improvements, while the House version 

provided for $2.25 billion in grant funds; (3) both established 

federal standards or requirements for voting systems, but the 

House provisions applied only to new systems; and (4) both 

versions required the use of provisional ballots and a statewide 

voter registration system, but only the Senate version included 

requirements for voter identifi cation.

 On October 4, 2002, conferees announced agreement 

on an election reform bill. Th e conference report was submitted on October 8 to the House, which took up the measure 

two days later. In his remarks in support of the conference 

agreement, Chairman Ney noted that the eff ort to craft election reform legislation was “a long, winding process that is 

about to conclude tonight, in what I think is going to be 

known as one of the most important votes that any Member 

of this body can cast, not only for this session but for the 

future, for decades to come, of the future of the voting process for the citizens of the United States.”145 Later that day, 

the House approved the conference report on a 357 to 48 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 83

vote.146 When Senate consideration of the agreement began 

on October 16, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of the Rules 

Committee refl ected on the voting problems in 2000 that 

spurred congressional action and the challenge of forging a 

bipartisan solution:

Th is has been a very long and arduous eff ort to get 

to this point. Th is is not a perfect piece of legislation, but I think it advances considerably the role 

the United States ought be playing as a Federal 

Government in the conduct of elections.... When 

we have error rates as we do and millions of people 

turned away at the polls, it is long overdue that 

we correct the system. Th is bill goes a long way in 

doing that. It is a proud day. It ought to be for all 

of us here who responded to the challenge that was 

asked of us as a result of the elections of 2000.147

Th e Senate approved the conference report on a 92 to 2 vote 

on October 16, 2002.148 Th e Help America Vote Act was 

signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 

29, 2002.149

Provisions of the Act

Th e Help America Vote Act created a new federal agency 

with election administration responsibilities, set requirements for voting and voter-registration systems and certain 

other aspects of election administration, and provided an 

unprecedented $3.86 billion in federal funding for election 

improvements. Th e law also:

• established several grant programs to replace punchcard 

and lever voting machines, to meet the federal standards 

established by the act, to promote disability access at 

polling places, to encourage participation in the voting 

process by high school and college students, and for 

election administration improvements generally;

• established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

composed of four members appointed by the President to 

four-year terms to replace the Offi ce of Election Administration (OEA) of the Federal Election Commission;150

• required that voting systems used in federal elections 

provide for error correction by voters, manual auditing, 

accessibility to disabled persons, alternative language 

capability as required for some jurisdictions under the 

Voting Rights Act, and federal error-rate standards;151

• required that any voter not listed as registered be off ered 

the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot and be permitted to cast that ballot;

• required states that have voter registration to employ a 

computerized statewide voter registration system that is 

accurately maintained;

• required fi rst-time voters who registered by mail to provide specifi ed identifi cation when voting;

• required that the EAC develop voluntary guidance to 

assist states in meeting the act’s requirements;

• established two enforcement processes under which 

the U.S. Attorney General could bring civil action with 

respect to the requirements;

• required that states, as a condition for receipt of funds, 

establish administrative procedures to handle complaints from individuals; and

• required (1) the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures to ensure that absentee ballots of military and 

overseas voters are postmarked; (2) that each state designate a single offi ce to provide information to military 

and overseas voters on absentee registration and voting; 

and (3) that each state report statistics on absentee ballots sent and received.152

In its scope, the Help America Vote Act was unprecedented in that it provided—for the fi rst time—federal standards on a broad range of election administration practices and 

the funding to achieve those standards. Just 14 months before 

the law was enacted, the Carter-Ford Commission on election 

reform had noted it its report that: “In a world of problems that 

often defy any solution, the weaknesses in election administration are, to a very great degree, problems that government can 

actually solve.”153 While its House and Senate sponsors noted 

that the Help America Vote Act was achieved through compromise, they more often proudly cited its bipartisan sponsorship 

to rectify fl aws in the democratic process and renew its promise.

Proposals to Amend HAVA and Related Oversight

108th Congress. During the 108th Congress, the Committee 

“continued to focus on important election reform matters, 
84 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

especially trying to ensure that Help America Vote Act 

was properly implemented and adequately funded. . . . Th e 

Committee also conducted numerous oversight hearings 

on election-related matters, including the issue of electronic voting system security and the operation of the Election Assistance Commission, to make sure that Congress 

remained informed about how HAVA was working on the 

state and local levels.”154

In July 2004, the Committee convened the fi rst of what 

would be many hearings on the security and reliability of electronic voting systems,155 and considered a number of bills on 

the topic. One proposal required all voting systems to produce 

a permanent paper record of a vote that could be corrected 

and verifi ed by the voter. Another required that a voting system produce an auditable paper record. A slightly diff erent 

bill on electronic voting systems required manufacturers to 

provide a copy of the software to a state, required states to 

test each system for at least 30 days prior to an election, and 

required that the names of individuals who worked on the 

software be provided to the Election Assistance Commission.

Th e Committee also held its fi rst oversight hearing on 

the Election Assistance Commission,156 whose commissioners 

had been appointed six months earlier. As the architects of 

the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and of the EAC as well, 

Committee members were interested in the EAC’s progress 

with respect to its mandate, as well as state compliance with 

HAVA and any impediments encountered by the commissioners, particularly with the 2004 election approaching. 

No further action was taken by the Committee on election 

reform proposals in the 108th Congress.

109th Congress. During the 109th Congress (2005–

2006), the Committee held eight hearings on election reform 

topics, including several to examine issues from the 2004 

presidential election, as well as HAVA implementation and 

reform proposals.157 Th e 2004 election was the fi rst in which 

the initial phase of HAVA requirements were in eff ect. One 

hearing was convened in Washington, D.C., one in Ohio, 

another in Wisconsin, and a third in New Mexico to discuss 

HAVA implementation and explore how the voting process 

had performed in the election. Other hearings were held 

on voter identifi cation requirements and noncitizen voting, 

ballot security and verifi cation, the pros and cons of paper 

voting records, and the activities of the Election Assistance 

Commission. No further action was taken by the Committee 

on election reform proposals in the 109th Congress.

110th Congress. During the 110th Congress (2007–

2008), the Committee again held a series of hearings on a 

variety of election reform topics, including oversight of the 

Election Assistance Commission, absentee voting, election 

day registration and provisional voting, best practices for poll 

workers, military and overseas voting, presidential primaries 

and caucuses, and preparations for the 2008 presidential 

elections. Th e Committee reported six election bills, H.R. 

281, H.R. 811, H.R. 5036, H.R. 5803, H.R. 6339, and H.R. 

6625,158 but only the fi rst two amended the Help America 

Vote Act. Th e other four bills reported by the Committee 

concerned Help America Vote Act-related topics, but did not 

require amending HAVA.

H.R. 281, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 

2007, permitted any voter to cast a ballot by mail, as long as 

the state could verify the voter’s identity through a comparison of the ballot signature with a signature on fi le.159 H.R. 

811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability 

Act of 2007, required a voting system that used or produced 

a voter-verifi ed paper record of each ballot before it would 

be cast and counted. It also mandated that states perform 

random audits of federal election results before they could be 

certifi ed.160 Neither bill was taken up by the House.

The Committee’s effort to pass legislation to require 

paper ballots for electronic voting machines stalled when 

the House did not take up H.R. 811. Th e Committee did, 

however, report H.R. 5036, which would have reimbursed 

jurisdictions for using paper ballot systems for the 2008 election, including converting or retrofi tting electronic voting 

machines, as well as for conducting manual audits of the 

results. A motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5036 

failed to achieve a two-thirds majority for passage in the 

House by a 239-178 vote.161
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 85

A third eff ort to address concerns over paperless electronic voting machines, H.R. 5803, was off ered by Committee member Zoe Lofgren. H.R. 5803 directed the Election 

Assistance Commission to make grant payments to states in 

order to provide for back-up paper ballots, in case of voting 

system failures, for the 2008 election. A motion to suspend 

the rules and pass H.R. 5803 failed to achieve the two-thirds 

majority necessary for passage in the House by a vote of 248 

to 170.162

With respect to poll worker shortages, the Help America 

Vote Act included a program to recruit college-age students to 

be poll workers. Th e Committee continued its commitment 

to addressing the problem of poll-worker shortages in reporting H.R. 6339, which would have allowed federal employees 

to use up to six days of leave to serve as poll workers or to 

receive training to be poll workers.163 Th e House took no 

further action on H.R. 6339.

Finally, H.R. 6625, the only election reform bill that 

the Committee reported and that the House passed during 

the 110th Congress, would have permitted states to designate 

Department of Veterans Aff airs facilities as voter registration 

agencies within the state, under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. On September 17, 2008, H.R. 6625 was 

agreed to by the House on motion to suspend the rules by a 

voice vote.164 Th e Senate took no action on the bill.

111th Congress. Th e Committee on House Administration’s work on election issues began with a hearing before its 

Subcommittee on Elections to review the performance of the 

nation’s election system in the 2008 general election.165 Th e 

subcommittee subsequently conducted oversight of the 2008 

audit review by the Inspector General (IG) of the Election 

Assistance Commission. Th e oversight hearing addressed 

the IG’s fi ndings on the inadequacy of the Commission’s 

accounting records, misallocation of Commission resources, 

and staff recruiting and hiring priorities.166 Th ree additional 

Subcommittee hearings focused on barriers to voting encountered by uniformed services personnel and overseas voters;167

uniform standards for election administration with respect 

to poll-worker training, provisional ballots, and emergency 

paper ballots;168 and voter registration modernization.169 Th e 

full Committee also convened a hearing on expanding access 

to the democratic process.170

Th e Committee reported three bills to amend the Help 

America Vote Act. H.R. 2510, the Absentee Ballot Track, 

Receive, and Confi rm Act, would have directed the Election 

Assistance Commission to reimburse states that voluntarily 

adopted a tracking system so voters could confi rm whether 

their absentee ballot was received and counted. Th e bill was 

reported by the Committee on June 19, 2009. On July 30 the 

House passed an amended version of H.R. 2510 on a voice 

vote under suspension of the rules. No further action occurred.

A second bill, H.R. 1604, the Universal Right to Vote by 

Mail Act of 2009, would have prohibited a state from imposing additional requirements on a voter’s eligibility to cast a 

ballot by mail, except to allow for verifi cation of the voter’s 

signature and to impose applicable deadlines. Both bills were 

sponsored by Committee member Susan Davis. Th e Committee reported an amended version of H.R. 1604 on July 16, 

2009,171 but the House took no further action on the bill. A 

third bill, H.R. 3489, would have prohibited state election 

offi cials from accepting a challenge to a voter’s eligibility to 

register or vote if the individual’s household was subject to 

foreclosure proceedings or because their jurisdiction was 

part of a geographic area adversely aff ected by a hurricane or 

major disaster, as declared by the President. H.R. 3489 was 

reported by the Committee on March 25, 2010,172 but no 

further action followed.

During the 111th Congress, the Committee also 

reported three other election reform bills that, if enacted, 

would not have amended the Help America Vote Act. Th e 

Committee reported and the House passed an election 

reform bill to make it unlawful for a chief state election 

offi cial to be active in a political campaign for federal offi ce. 

Sponsored by Committee member Susan Davis, H.R. 512 

would have prohibited such political activity by the election offi cial unless the offi cial or a family member was a 

candidate. It was amended and reported by the Committee 

on December 8, 2009.173 An amended version was passed 

in the House under suspension of the rules on September 29, 2010, by a 296-129 vote; the Senate did not act on 
86 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the bill. Another election bill reported by the Committee 

was H.R. 2393, sponsored by Committee member Kevin 

McCarthy.174 Th is bill amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (P.L. 99-410) to require 

the Secretary of Defense to collect completed ballots from 

overseas members of the uniformed services for delivery to 

state election offi cials before the polls close on election day. 

Th e Committee reported H.R. 2393 on October 1, 2009, 

but it was not taken up by the House. A similar provision 

was included in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (P.L. 111-84) that improved the voting process 

for members of the uniformed services and their family 

members, and American citizens overseas.

112th Congress. At the outset of the 112th Congress, the 

Committee began its oversight work by convening a hearing to evaluate the implementation and performance of the 

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009, the 

MOVE Act, on the 2010 election.175 An Assistant Attorney 

General at the Department of Justice testifi ed about enforcement eff orts, while state election offi cials from West Virginia, 

Indiana, and Florida, and two witnesses from military voting 

advocacy groups testifi ed on implementation of the law and 

its eff ectiveness in the November election.

Th e Subcommittee on Elections held three subsequent 

hearings. Th e fi rst dealt with the activities and 2012 budget 

request of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).176 At 

the second hearing, the subcommittee explored issues and 

voter experiences during the 2010 election by hearing from 

several election offi cials and representatives of a voting equipment company and a law school democracy program.177 Th e 

third hearing was on H.R. 672, a bill to terminate the EAC, 

which was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002.178

Th e legislation was sponsored by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections, Representative Gregg Harper. H.R. 

672 called for the elimination of the EAC. It also eliminated 

its two advisory boards: the Standards Board and the Advisory Board, replacing them with a new board that included 

state and local election offi cials and stakeholders. Th e bill 

transferred other various EAC functions to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). Th e bill transferred to the FEC the 

EAC’s responsibility for developing voluntary voting system 

guidelines and maintaining an information clearinghouse. 

It also transferred to the FEC certain responsibilities under 

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 

the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and the 

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. Agency 

responsibilities for testing and certifi cation of voting system 

hardware and software were to be transferred to NIST.

In his opening remarks at the April 14, 2011, hearing, 

Chairman Harper noted that the EAC had been established 

to “disburse funds and assist States in their obligation to meet 

the requirements” of the new law, but he added the following:

Today, nearly a decade later, after most States 

have met the major requirements of HAVA, little 

funding remains to be disbursed. Any yet with the 

bloated, management-heavy budget and a demonstrated inability to manage its resources wisely, the 

EAC continues to operate providing little, if any, 

real assistance to the States at signifi cant cost to 

taxpayers.179

In his testimony Representative Steny Hoyer, ranking member on the Committee when HAVA was enacted, 

emphasized the agency’s importance in providing guidance 

to the states on election administration, testing of voting 

systems, and developing best practices for military voting. 

He acknowledged that the EAC could be more effi cient and 

would benefi t from future oversight by the Committee.180

Th e second panel of witnesses included the Secretaries of 

State from New Hampshire, Mississippi, and Florida; the 

Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County, California; and 

a representative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). 

Th e Secretaries strongly supported the legislation,181 while the 

Registrar and AEI representative favored modifying, rather 

than terminating, the agency.182

Th e Committee met on May 25, 2011, to mark up H.R. 

672183 and approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute, off ered by Representative Harper. As amended, the 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 87

bill transferred essential functions to the FEC, rather than 

to both the FEC and NIST. Th e Committee reported the 

bill on June 2.184 It was taken up by the House on June 21 

under suspension of the rules, but failed to attain the twothirds majority needed for passage when the vote was taken 

on June 22.

A similar bill introduced by Representative Harper on 

November 17, 2011, was passed in the House on December 

1, 2011. H.R. 3463 called for the elimination of the EAC 

and transferred its functions to the FEC, as did the amended 

version of H.R. 672. It also terminated public fi nancing of 

presidential election campaigns and the national party conventions. Th e House took up the bill under a closed rule and 

passed it on a 236-190 vote. Th e Senate did not act on the bill 

during the fi rst session of the 112th Congress.

Th e Committee’s action on legislation to eliminate the 

EAC was the initial eff ort in Congress to settle the question 

of whether the agency is temporary or permanent, a debate 

that began during debate on the Help America Vote Act. 

As the fi rst session of the 112th Congress ended, it appeared 

that elimination of the EAC was going to be a priority of the 

Committee for the foreseeable future. 

Endnotes

1 Article 1, section 5.

2 Rep. Chase Woodhouse, “Federal Anti-Poll-Tax Act,” remarks in 

the House. Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 26, 1949, p. 10228.

3 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Anti-Poll-Tax Legislation, hearings on 

H.R. 29, H.R. 7, H.R. 66, H.R. 225, H.R. 230, H.R. 668, H.R. 

1435, and H.R. 4040, 80th Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 

14, and 15 (Washington: GPO, 1947).

4 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Poll 

Taxes, report to accompany H.R. 29, 80th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

947 (Washington: GPO, 1947).

5 A complete copy of the Committee report was included in 

the Congressional Record for July, 21, 1947. Rep. Tom Pickett et 

al., “Poll Taxes,” remarks in the House. Congressional Record, 

vol. 93, July 21, 1947, p. 9526. Article 1, Section 2 reads “Th e 

House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 

chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, 

and the Electors in each State shall have the qualifi cations 

requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the state 

legislature.”

6 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Poll 

Taxes, report of Minority Views to accompany H.R. 29, 80th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 947, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1947), 

p. 3; and “Poll Taxes,” remarks in the House, Congressional 

Record, vol. 93, July 21, 1947, p. 9526.

7 Rep. George Bender, “Poll Taxes,” remarks in the House, 

Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 21, 1947, p. 9528.

8 “Poll Taxes,” Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 21, 1947, pp. 

9551–9552.

9 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. IV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly News Features, 1948), pp. 272–273.

10 Rep. Brooks Hays, “Th e Arkansas Plan for Civil-Rights Legislation,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 95, Feb. 

2, 1949, p. 767.

11 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Anti-Poll Tax Legislation, unpublished 

hearings, 81st Cong., 1st sess., May 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 24, 31, 

1949, and June 1, 2, 8, 9, 1949 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 81 Hhad-T.6–HHad-T.19). See also: “Weekly 

Committee Report,” Congressional Quarterly, vol. 7, May 6, 1949, 

p. 587, May 13, 1959, p. 620, and May 20, 1949, p. 650.

12 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. V (Washington: Congressional Quarterly News Features, 1949), p. 589.

13 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Making Unlawful the Requirement for the Payment of a Poll Tax as a 

Prerequisite to Voting in a Primary or Other Election for National 

Offi cers, report to accompany H.R. 3199, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 912 (Washington: GPO, 1949), p. 3.

14 Rep. Adolph J. Sabath, “Adoption of the Rules for the 81st

Congress,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 95, 

Jan. 3, 1949, pp. 10–11.

15 Rep. Mary Norton, “Federal Anti-Poll-Tax Act,” remarks 

in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 25, 1949, pp. 

10097–10098.

16 Rep. Mary Norton, “Federal Anti-Poll-Tax Act,” remarks in 

the House, Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 25, 1949, p. 10098.

17 Rep. Harry J. Davenport, “Federal Anti-Poll-Tax Act,” 

remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 

26, 1949, p. 10223. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment reads 

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states 

according to their respective numbers, counting the whole 

number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. 

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of 

electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, 

Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial offi cers 

of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to 

any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years 

of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, 

except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis 
88 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

of representation shall be reduced in the proportion which the 

number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of 

male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.”

18 “Federal Anti-Poll Tax Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 

26, 1949, pp. 10220–10248.

19 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, Vol. V, (1949), (Washington: Congressional Quarterly News Features, 1949), p. 591.

20 “Th e Alexander Hamilton National Monument—Amendment to the Constitution Dealing With Poll Taxes,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 108, Mar. 27, 1962, pp. 5102–5106. For background 

on Senate consideration of the amendment see: Alan P. Grimes, 

Democracy and the Amendments to the Constitution (Lexington, 

MA: Lexington Books, 1978), pp. 130–132.

21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Outlawing Payment of Poll or Other Tax as Qualifi cation for Voting in 

Federal Elections, report to accompany S. J. Res. 29, 87th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 1821 (Washington: GPO, 1962).

22 “Qualifi cation of Electors,” Congressional Record, vol. 108, 

Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17654–17670.

23 U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate 

Manual, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 110-1 (Washington: GPO, 

2008), p. 1128.

24 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 15, Oct. 10, 1948, p. 1.

25 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 15, Oct. 10, 1948, p. 1.

26 U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, Th e Scope of Congressional 

Authority in Election Administration, GAO-01-470, Mar. 2001, 

p. 2.

27 U.S. Department of Defense, Th e Federal Voting Assistance 

Program, 11th Report (Washington: Dec. 1977), p. 2.

28 “Should Soldiers Have the Vote? Th ey Say Yes, Congress 

Maybe,” Newsweek, vol. 22, Dec. 1943, pp. 54, 59.

29 P.L. 277, 58 Stat. 136-137 (Apr. 1, 1944).

30 P.L. 712, 56 Stat. 753 (Sept. 16, 1942).

31 P.L. 348, 60 Stat. 96-103 (Apr. 19, 1946).

32 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Providing a More Eff ective Method of Delivering Applications for 

Absentee Ballots to Servicemen and Certain Other Persons, report 

to accompany H.R. 9399, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 3045 

(Washington: GPO, 1950).

33 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Amending the Act of September 16, 1942, As Amended, so as to 

Facilitate Voting by Members of the Armed Forces, and Certain 

Others, Absent From Th eir Places of Residence, report to accompany 

H.R. 9455, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 3046 (Washington: 

GPO, 1950).

34 H.R. 9399 was enacted as P.L. 81-862, 64 Stat. 1082 (Sept. 

29, 1950); and H.R. 9455 was enacted as P.L. 81-863, 64 Stat. 

1082-1083 (Sept. 29, 1950).

35 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Voting in Armed Forces, hearings on 

H.R. 7571 and S. 3061, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., June 26 and July 1, 

1952 (Washington: GPO, 1952).

36 Ibid, p. 35. 

37 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Voting in Armed Forces, hearings on 

H.R. 7571 and S. 3061, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., June 26 and July 1, 

1952 (Washington: GPO, 1952), pp. 35–37.

38 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. VIII (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly News Features, 1952), p. 205.

39 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Voting in the Armed Forces, hearings 

on S. 1654, H.R. 8917, et al., 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess., June 25, 1954 

(Washington: GPO, 1954).

40 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1954, report to accompany S. 

1654, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2257 (Washington: GPO, 

1954), p. 6.

41 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, report to accompany H.R. 

3406, 84th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 20 (Washington: GPO, 

1955), p. 1.

42 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, report to accompany H.R. 3406, 

84th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 20 (Washington: GPO, 1955).

43 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, report to accompany H.R. 4048, 

84th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 60 (Washington: GPO, 1955).

44 “Assistance to Federal Personnel in Exercising Th eir Voting 

Franchise—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 101, 

Aug. 1, 1955, pp. 12595–12598; “Federal Voting Assistance Act 

of 1955,” Congressional Record, vol. 101, Aug. 2, 1955, p. 13005; 

and P.L. 84-296, 69 Stat. 584-589 (Aug. 9, 1955).

45 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

In-Hand Delivery of Post Card Applications for Registration and 

Absentee Voting Under the Federal Voting Assistance Act, hearings 

on H.R. 8432, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 25, 1960 (Washington: 

GPO, 1960).

46 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Amending the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 so as to Recommend to the Several States that its Absentee Registration and Voting 

Procedures Be Extended to All Citizens Temporarily Residing 

Abroad, report to accompany H.R. 8176, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 1384 (Washington: GPO, 1968).
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 89

47 “Amending the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 so as to 

Recommend to the Several States that its Absentee Registration 

and Voting Procedures be Extended to All Citizens Temporarily 

Residing Abroad,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, May 20, 1968, 

p. 13889.

48 “Amending the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 so as to 

Recommend to the Several States that its Absentee Registration 

and Voting Procedures be Extended to All Citizens Temporarily 

Residing Abroad,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, May 20, 1968, 

p. 13890; and “Extension of Registration and Voting Procedures 

be Extended to All Citizens Residing Abroad,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 114, June 3, 1968, p. 15792.

49 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Amending the Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 584), report 

to accompany S. 1581, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1385 

(Washington: GPO, 1968).

50 P.L. 90-343, 82 Stat. 180 (June 18, 1968); and P.L. 90-344, 

82 Stat. 181-183 (June 18, 1968).

51 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voting 

Rights for U.S. Citizens Residing Abroad, hearings on H.R. 3211, 

94th Cong., 1st sess. Feb. 25, 26, and Mar. 11, 1975 (Washington: 

GPO, 1960). For quote see: Testimony of J. Eugene Marans, Esq., 

Counsel to the Bipartisan Committee for Absentee Voting, Inc., 

ibid, Feb. 25, 1975, p. 70.

52 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, report to accompany S. 95, 

94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-649, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 

1975).

53 For quote see: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, report to 

accompany S. 95, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-649, Part 1 

(Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 13.

54 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Overseas 

Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, report to accompany S. 95, 94th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-649, Part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

55 “Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 121, Dec. 10, 1975, pp. 39731–39737, and Dec. 18, 

1975, pp. 41517–41522.

56 P.L. 94-203, 89 Stat. 1142-1144 (Jan. 2, 1976).

57 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Improving the Administration and Operation of the Overseas 

Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, and for Other Purposes, report 

to accompany S. 703, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1568 

(Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 2.

58 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Improving the Administration and Operation of the Overseas 

Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, and for Other Purposes, report 

to accompany S. 703, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1568 

(Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 18.

59 “Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act Amendments,” Congressional Record, vol. 124, Sept. 19, 1978, pp. 30198–30199; and 

“Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 

124, Oct. 13, 1978, pp. 36680–36683.

60 P.L. 95-593, 92 Stat. 2535-2539 (Nov. 4, 1978).

61 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 4393, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-765 

(Washington: GPO, 1986).

62 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting, hearing on H.R. 4393, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 

6, 1986 (Washington: GPO, 1986).

63 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 4393, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-765 

(Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 18.

64 “Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 132, Aug. 12, 1986, pp. 20976–20979; 

“Absentee Registration and Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 

132, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 21894; and P.L. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924-929 

(Aug. 28, 1986).

65 P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1274-1280 (Dec. 28, 2001); P.L. 

107-252, 116 Stat. 1688, 1722-1725 (Oct. 29, 2002); and P.L. 

108-375, 118 Stat. 1919-1920 (Oct. 28, 2004).

66 U.S. Committee on House Administration, Help America 

Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 107-329, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2001). 

Th e Committee conferees appointed on May 16, 2002, were 

Robert Ney of Ohio, Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, John Doolittle 

of California, Th omas Reynolds of New York, Steny Hoyer of 

Maryland, Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, and Jim Davis of 

Florida. “Appointment of Conferees on H.R. 3295, Help America 

Vote Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, May 16, 2002, pp. 

7998–8002.

67 Th e Committee conferees were: Robert Ney of Ohio, John 

Mica of Florida, and Steny Hoyer of Maryland. “National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 147, Oct. 17, 2001, p. 20196.

68 Th e Committee conferees were: Robert Ney of Ohio, 

Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, and John B. Larson of Connecticut. 

“Appointment of Conferees on H.R. 4200, National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,” Congressional Record, vol. 

150, Sept. 28, 2004, p. 19711.

69 P.L. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924-929 (Aug. 28, 1986). Sec. 107 (1). 

“An “absent uniformed services voter” is defi ned as follows: “(A) 

a member of a uniformed service on active duty, who by reason of 

such active duty, is absent from the place of residence where the 

member is otherwise qualifi ed to vote; (B) a member of the mer90 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

chant marine who, by reason of service in the merchant marine, is 

absent from the place of residence where the member is otherwise 

qualifi ed to vote; and (C) a spouse or dependent of a member” 

of a uniformed service or a member of the merchant marine, “is 

absent from the place of residence where the spouse or dependent 

is otherwise qualifi ed to vote.”

70 P.L. 99-410, 100 Stat. 926-927 (Aug. 28, 1986); 42 USC 

1973ff -2.

71 P.L. 99-410, sec. 201(a)(1), 100 Stat. 928 (Aug. 28, 1986); 34 

USC 3406. Th e United States Postal Service domestic mail manual notes that “To be mailable without prepayment of postage, 

the balloting materials must be deposited at a U.S. post offi ce, 

an overseas U.S. military post offi ce, or an American Embassy or 

American Consulate.”

72 P.L. 99-410, sec. 104, 100 Stat. 926-927 (Aug. 28, 1986); 42 

U.S.C. §1973ff -3.

73 Ibid.

74 P.L. 107-107, sec. 104, 115 Stat. 1279 (Dec. 28, 2001).

75 P.L. 107-252, Title VII, sec. 704, 706, 116 Stat. 1724 (Oct. 

29, 2001); 42 USC 1973ff -3.

76 Ibid.

77 P.L. 107-252, Title VII, §§701-705, 116 Stat. 1722-1725 (Oct. 

29, 2001).

78 P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1775-1279 (Dec. 28, 2001); 42 USC 

1973ff . 

79 P.L. 108-375, Title V, Subtitle I, §566, 118 Stat. 1919 (Oct. 

28, 2004). 

80 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 2004 

Election and the Implementation of the Help America Vote Act, hearing held in Columbus, Ohio, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 21, 2005 

(Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 5.

81 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on the 2008 Election: A Look 

Back on What Went Right and Wrong, 111th Congress, 1st sess., 

Mar. 26, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009). 

82 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on Military and Overseas Voting: 

Obstacles and Potential Solutions, 111th Congress, 1st sess., May 21, 

2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009), pp. 1–2.

83 Ibid.

84 H.R. 2393 (111th Congress); and U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Military Voting Protection Act of 2009, 

report to accompany H.R. 2393, 111th Congress, 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 111-281 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

85 P.L. 111-84, Division A, Title V, Subtitle H, §580, 123 Stat. 

2324 (Oct. 28, 2009).

86 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010, conference report to 

accompany H.R. 2647, 111th Congress, 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-288 

(Washington: GPO, 2009). 

87 P.L. 111-84, P.L. 111-84, Division A, Title V, Subtitle H, 

§§575-589, 123 Stat. 2318-2335 (Oct. 28, 2009).

88 P.L. 111-84, P.L. 111-84, Division A, Title V, Subtitle H, 

§§577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 123 Stat. 2319, 2321, 2322, 

2324, 2326, 2327, 2329 (Oct. 28, 2009). 

89 P.L. 111-84, P.L. 111-84, Division A, Title V, Subtitle H, 

§§586-589, 123 Stat. 2331-2335 (Oct. 28, 2009). 

90 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Equal 

Access to Voting for Elderly and Disabled Persons, hearings, 98th

Cong., 1st sess., July 14, and Oct. 12, 1983, and Mar. 8, 1984 

(Washington: GPO, 1983).

91 Th e Book of the States, vol. 26, (Lexington, KY: Th e Council of 

State Governments, 1986), p. 176.

92 P.L. 97-205, 96 Stat. 135, sec. 208 (June 29, 1982).

93 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Equal 

Access to Voting for the Elderly and Disabled Persons, hearings, 98th

Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 1983 (Washington: GPO, 1983), p. 1.

94 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, report 

to accompany H.R. 1250, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-852 

(Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 3.

95 Ibid.

96 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, report 

to accompany H.R. 1250, 98th Cong., 2d

 sess., H. Rept. 98-852 

(Washington: GPO, 1984), pp. 6, 11, 13–14.

97 Rep. Hamilton Fish, “Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 

Handicapped Act,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, 

vol. 130, June 25, 1984, p. 18495.

98 “Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act,” 

remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 130, June 25, 

1984, p. 18499.

99 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, report to accompany H.R. 1250, 98th Cong., 2d

 session, S. 

Rept. 98-590 (Washington: GPO, 1984).

100 “Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act,” 

remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 130, Aug. 10, 

1984, pp. 23779–23782.

101 “Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act,” 

remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 130, Sept. 12, 

1984, pp. 25159–25160. 

102 P.L. 98-435, 98 Stat. 1678-1680 (Sept. 28, 1984).

103 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service, Voter Registration, hearings, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 

Oct. 5, 6, 12, 19, and 28, 1971 (Washington: GPO, 1971); U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 91

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Th e Concept of National 

Voter Registration, hearings, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 24, Mar. 

22, Apr. 21, 24, May 24, June 27, and July 28, 1972 (Washington: GPO, 1972); “National Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, Dec. 3, 1971, pp. 44504–44536; “National 

Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, Mar. 9, 

1972, 7817–7820, Mar. 13, 1972, pp. 8054–8057, Mar. 14, 1972, 

pp. 8283–8289, 8450, 8301–8310.

104 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Registration Act, a report together with minority and additional 

views to accompany H.R. 8053, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

93-778 (Washington: GPO, 1974), p. 7. 

105 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Registration Act, a report together with minority and additional 

views to accompany H.R. 8053, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

93-778 (Washington: GPO, 1974), p. 7. See also: U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Th e Voter Registration Act, 

hearings on H.R. 8053, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 28, July 19, 

25, 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1973).

106 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Registration Act, a report together with minority and additional 

views to accompany H.R. 8053, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

93-778 (Washington: GPO, 1974), p. 8.

107 “Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, May 

9, 1973, pp. 14862–14877; and “Providing of Consideration of 

H.R. 8053, Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 

200, May 8, 1974, pp. 13760–13744.

108 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Post Card Registration, hearings on H.R. 1686, 94th Cong., 1st

sess., Apr. 8, 9, May 8, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975); U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Registration Act, a report together with minority views, additional 

views, and additional views on regulation approval procedure 

to accompany H.R. 1686, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-669 

(Washington: GPO, 1975); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Voter Registration Act, a report together with 

additional views and minority views to accompany H.R. 11552, 

94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-798 (Washington: GPO, 1976); 

and “Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, Aug. 

9, 1976, pp. 26378–26404.

109 Mercer Cross, “ Carter Proposes Broad Election Reforms,” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 35, Mar. 26, 1977, p. 

561. See also: U.S. Presidents (Carter), Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Jimmy Carter, 1977, Book I (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 481–482.

110 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Universal Voter Registration Act of 1977, hearings on H.R. 5400, 95th

Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 6, 21, 26, 27, and 28, 1977 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Universal Voter Registration Act of 1977, a report together 

with additional minority, and dissenting views to accompany 

H.R. 5400, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 95-318 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977).

111 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 95th Congress, 1st Session, 

1977, vol. 33 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1977), 

p. 799. See also: U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and 

Administration, Universal Voting Act of 1977, report to accompany S. 1072, 95th Cong, 1st sess., S. Rept. 95-171 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977).

112 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on Elections, Voter Registration, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., June 

27, 1984 (Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 1.

113 Ibid.

114 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H.R. 15],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 135, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 103.

115 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Registration, hearings on H.R. 15, H.R. 17, and H.R. 87, 101st 

Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 21, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 1989).

116 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H.R. 17],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 135, May 2, 1989, p. 103; “National Voter Registration Act of 1989,” Congressional Record, vol. 136, Feb. 6, 1990, pp. 

1249–1272; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1989, 101st Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 101-243, Sept. 18, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 

1989). See also Kitty Dumas, “Democrats Drive Voter Bill, But 

Big Potholes Remain,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 48, Feb. 10, 1990, 

pp. 410–411.

117 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1989, 101st Cong., 

1st sess., S. Rept. 101-140, Sept. 26, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 

1989); and “Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, vol.136, 

Sept. 26, 1990, pp. 25901–25906. See also: “Senate Republicans 

Kill ‘Motor Voter’ Bill,” 1990 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 

vol. 46 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1991), pp. 

71–72.

118 “National Voter Registration Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 

138, May 20, 1992, pp. 11865; and “National Voter Registration 

Act of 1992,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, June 16, 1992, pp. 

14971–15010. See also: U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on 

Rules and Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1991, 

S. Rept. 102-60, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991); Elizabeth A. Palmer, “‘Motor Voter’ Drive Succeeds, But Promised Veto Waits,” CO Weekly Report, vol. 50, June 

20, 1992, p. 1795; and “Bush Rejects Motor Voter Registration,” 

1992 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 48 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1993), pp. 75–77.

119 “Veto Message on S. 250, National Voter Registration Act—

Message from the President—PM 259,” Congressional Record, vol. 

138, July 2, 1992, pp. 17965–17966.
92 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

120 “National Voter Registration Act—Veto,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 138, Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 16589–26592.

121 Gwen Ifi ll, “At Jackson’s Behest, Clinton Kicks Off Voter 

Drive,” New York Times, Sept. 13, 1992, p. 36; “Remarks on 

Signing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993,” U.S. President (Clinton), Public Papers of the President, William J. Clinton, 

1993, 2 books (Washington: GPO, 1994), book I, p. 707.

122 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H.R. 2],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 139, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 128; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter Registration, hearing, 

103rd Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 26, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993), 

p. 2. 

123 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H.R. 2],” Congressional 

Record, vol. 139, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 128; U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 

H. Rept. 103-9, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 2, 1993 (Washington: 

GPO, 1993), p. 5; and “National Voter Registration Act of 1993,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 139, Feb. 4, 1993, pp. 2445–2470.

124 “National Voter Registration Act of 1993,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 139, Mar. 17, 1993, pp. 5217–5223. See also: Richard 

Sammon, “Senate Approves ‘Motor Voter’ With Concessions to 

the GOP,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, vol. 51, Mar. 20, 1993, 

p. 664; and “‘Motor Voter’ Bill Enacted after 5 Years,” 1993 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 49 (Washington: Congressional 

Quarterly, Inc., 1994), p. 200.

125 U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993, conference report to accompany H.R. 2, 

103rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 103-66 (Washington: GPO, 1993); 

“Conference Report on H.R. 2, National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, May 5, 1993, pp. 9219–

9232; and “National Voter Registration Act of 1993—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, May 11, 1993, pp. 

9639–9641; and P.L. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77-89 (May 20, 1993).

126 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

127 Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to Elections, 2 vols. (Washington: CQ Press, 2005), v. 1, p. 303 –307.

128 See for example, Karen Foerstel, “Prospects Bleak for Election Panel,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 59, Mar. 24, 2001, p. 674.

129 Th e bill was also referred to the House Government Reform, 

Judiciary, Armed Services, and Science Committees.

130 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Reform, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 2001 

(Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 3. 

131 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Reform, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 25, 2001 

(unpublished); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Reform, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., 

May 10, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 3. See also: U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 107th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 12–13.

132 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration,

Voting Technology Hearing, hearing 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 

2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003); and U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Hearing on Technology and the Voting 

Process, hearing 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 24, 2001 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003).

133 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Help 

America Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 107-329 (Washington: GPO, 2001).

134 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3295, Help America 

Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 12, 2001, 

p. 25102

135 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3295, Help America 

Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 12, 2001, 

pp. 25098–25107.

136 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3295, Help America 

Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 12, 2001, 

pp. 25131–25132.

137 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3295, Help America 

Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 12, 2001, 

p. 25133.

138 “Help America Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 

147, Dec. 12, 2001, pp. 25152–25153.

139 Andrew Taylor, “Shakeup In the Senate,” CQ Weekly, vol. 

59, May 26, 2001, p. 1208.

140 S. 565 was reported without amendment and without a written report, “Reports of Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 

147, Nov. 28, 2001, p. 23134

141 John Cochran, ”GOP Boycotts Election Overhaul Vote,” 

CQ Weekly, vol. 59, Aug. 4, 2001, p. 1914.

142 “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, Feb. 13, 2002, pp. 1204–1224.

143 “Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, Apr. 11, 2002, pp. 4381–4423.

144 Senate conferees were Senators Christopher J. Dodd, Charles 

E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Mitch McConnell, and Christopher S. Bond; Appointment of conferees, H.R. 4 and H.R. 

3295, Congressional Record, May 1, 2002, p. 6610–6611. House 

conferees were Representatives Robert W. Ney, Vernon J. Ehlers, 

John T. Doolittle, Th omas M. Reynolds, Steny H. Hoyer, and 

Chaka Fattah from the House Administration Committee, Bob 

Stump, John M. McHugh, and Ike Skelton from the Committee 

on Armed Services, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Steve Chabot, 

and John Conyers, Jr. from the Committee on the Judiciary, Sherwood L. Boehlert, James A. Barcia, Constance A. Morella, and 

Sheila Jackson Lee from the Committee on Science, Bill Th omas, 
FEDER AL ELECTION AND VOTING LAWS: PRESERVING THE NATION’S ELECTOR AL PROCESS 93

E. Clay Shaw, Jr., and Charles B. Rangel from the Committee on 

Ways and Means, and Roy Blunt for consideration of modifi -

cations committed to conference. “Appointment of conferees 

on H.R. 3295, Help America Vote Act of 2001,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 148, May 16, 2002, p. 7998.

145 “Conference Report on H.R. 3295, Help America Vote Act 

of 2002,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20315.

146 “Conference Report on H.R. 3295, Help America Vote 

Act of 2002,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, Oct. 10, 2002, pp. 

20315–29332.

147 “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 148, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 20859.

148 “Help America Vote Act of 2002—Conference Report,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 148, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 20860.

149 P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666-1730 (Oct. 29, 2002).

150 Th e main duties of the EAC include carrying out grant programs, providing for testing and certifi cation of voting systems, 

studying election issues, and issuing voluntary guidelines for 

voting systems. Th e commission does not have any new rulemaking authority or enforcement power; it does have the authority 

to develop a mail voter registration application form for federal 

elections, which was previously the responsibility of the Federal 

Election Commission.

151 Systems must also maintain voter privacy and ballot confi -

dentiality, and states are required to adopt uniform standards for 

what constitutes a vote on each system.

152 P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666-1730 (Oct. 29, 2002).

153 National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure 

Pride and Confi dence in the Electoral Process (Charlottesville, VA: 

the Miller Center of Public Aff airs, Aug. 2001), p. 1.

154 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration 

During the 109th Congress, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 

(Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 4.

155 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Electronic Voting System Security, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd

sess., July 7, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004).

156 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., June 17, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004).

157 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Oversight of HAVA Implementation, hearing, 109th Cong., 

1st sess., Feb. 9, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2006); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, 2004 Election and the 

Implementation of the Help America Vote Act, hearing held in 

Columbus, Ohio, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 21, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on the Conduct of Elections and Proposals for 

Reform, hearing held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 109th Cong., 1st

sess., Oct. 24, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2006); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Hearing on the Conduct 

of Elections and Proposals for Reform, hearing held in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 24, 2005 (Washington: 

GPO, 2006); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Oversight of the Election Assistance Commission, 

hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 

2006); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Hearing on “You Don’t Need Papers to Vote?” Non-Citizen Voting 

and ID Requirements in U.S. Elections, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd

sess., June 22, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 2006); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Voting Machines: Will the 

New Standards and Guidelines Help Prevent Future Problems?, 

hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 

2006); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Hearing on Securing the Vote: New Mexico, hearing in Las Cruces, 

New Mexico, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 3, 2006 (Washington: 

GPO, 2006); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Verifi cation, Security and Paper Records for Our 

Nation’s Electronic Voting Systems, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 

Sept. 28, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 2006).

158 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2008, report to accompany 

H.R. 281, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-581 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter Confi dence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, 

report to accompany H.R. 811, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

110-154 (Washington: GPO, 2007); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Emergency Assistance for Secure 

Elections Act of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 5036, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-582 (Washington: GPO, 2008); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Direct 

the Election Assistance Commission to Establish a Program to Make 

Grants..., report to accompany H.R. 5803, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 110-637 (Washington: GPO, 2008); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Federal Employees Deserve 

to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 2008 or the FEDVOTE Act of 

2008, report to accompany H.R. 6339, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 110-886 (Washington: GPO, 2008); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Veteran Voting Support 

Act, report to accompany H.R. 6625, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 110-851 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

159 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2008, report to accompany 

H.R. 281, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-581 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008).

160 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Voter 

Confi dence and Increased Accountability Act of 2007, 110th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 110-154 (Washington: GPO, 2007).

161 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 
94 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008, report to 

accompany H.R. 5036, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-582 

(Washington: GPO, 2008); and “Emergency Assistance for 

Secure Elections Act of 2008,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 154, part 5, Apr. 15, 2008, pp. 6029–6030.

162 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To 

Direct the Election Assistance Commission to Establish a Program 

to Make Grants..., report to accompany H.R. 5803, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-637 (Washington: GPO, 2008); and 

“Establishing Program to Make Grants Regarding Backup Paper 

Ballots,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 

vol. 154, July 15, 2008, p. H6545.

163 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Federal Employees Deserve to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 

2008 or the FEDVOTE Act of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 

6339, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-886 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008).

164 Congress, Committee on House Administration, Veteran 

Voting Support Act, report to accompany H.R. 6625, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-851 (Washington: GPO, 2008); and “Veteran Voting Support Act,” remarks in the House, Congressional 

Record, vol. 154, part 14, Sept. 17, 2008, pp. 19522–19524.

165 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on the 2008 Election: A Look 

Back on What Went Right and Wrong, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st

sess., Mar. 26, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

166 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on the 2008 Audit Review and 

Agency Spending by the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 

111th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 1, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

167 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on Military and Overseas Voting: 

Obstacles and Potential Solutions, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., 

May 21, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

168 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Examining Uniformity in Election 

Standards, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 15, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

169 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Modernizing the Election Registration 

Process, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 21, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

170 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Engaging the Electorate: Strategies for Expanding Access to Democracy, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 23, 2009 (Washington: 

GPO, 2009).

171 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Universal 

Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2009, report to accompany H.R. 1604, 

111th Congress, 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-211 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

172 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Amending the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Prohibit State 

Election Offi cials From Accepting a Challenge to an Individual’s Eligibility to Register to Vote..., report to accompany H.R. 3489, 111th

Congress, 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-457 (Washington: GPO, 2010).

173 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Federal Election Integrity Act of 2009, report to accompany H.R. 

512, 111th Congress, 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-363 (Washington: 

GPO, 2009).

174 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Military Voting Protection Act of 2009, report to accompany H.R. 

2393, 111th Congress, 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-281 (Washington: 

GPO, 2009).

175 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Military and Overseas Voting: Eff ectiveness of the Move Act in the 

2010 Election, hearing, 112th Congress, 1st sess., Feb. 15, 2011 

(Washington: GPO, 2011).

176 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Request, hearing, 112th Congress, 1st sess., 

Mar. 17, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011).

177 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Th e 2010 Election: A Look Back at What 

Went Right and Wrong, 112th Congress, 1st sess., Mar. 31, 2011 

(Washington: GPO, 2011).

178 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, H.R. 672, To Terminate the Election 

Assistance Commission, 112th Congress, 1st sess., Apr. 14, 2011 

(Washington: GPO, 2011).

179 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, H.R. 672, To Terminate the Election 

Assistance Commission, 112th Congress, 1st sess., Apr. 14, 2011, pp. 

1–2.

180 Ibid., pp. 20, 21.

181 Ibid., pp. 23–56.

182 Ibid., pp. 57–62, and pp. 63–72.

183 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Markup of H.R. 672, to Terminate the Election Assistance Commission; H.R. 1934, to Improve Certain Administration Operations at the Library of Congress; and a Subcommittee Resolution on 

Subcommittee Membership, 112th Congress, 1st sess., May 25, 2011 

(Washington: GPO, 2011).

184 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Support Consolidation and Effi ciency Act, 112th Congress, 1st

sess., H. Rept. 112-100 (Washington: GPO, 2011).
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 95

V. C A MPA IGN FI NA NCE L EGISL AT ION

Origins and Development

Before the nation’s current campaign finance laws were 

enacted in the 1970s, the system was regulated by a series 

of statutes dating from 1907, but primarily by the Federal 

Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, as amended by the Hatch 

Act amendments of 1940.1 Among the principal features of 

the Corrupt Practices Act were: (1) disclosure of receipts and 

expenditures by political committees operating in two or 

more states and by House and Senate candidates; (2) limits on 

contributions by individuals to federal candidates or national 

committees; and (3) limits on expenditures by House and 

Senate candidates and political committees operating in two 

or more states.

Th e following chronology lists the principal statutes and 

court decisions that governed campaign fi nance practices at 

the federal level prior to the Federal Election Campaign Act 

of 1971 (FECA). A brief summary of the principal provisions of each law is provided, along with some notation as to 

whether it was later repealed or is still in eff ect.

• Tillman Act, 1907 (34 Stat. 864)—prohibited monetary contributions from nationally chartered banks 

and corporations to political campaigns at any level and 

prohibited such contributions from any corporation to 

political campaigns at the federal level (still in eff ect);

• Publicity Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 822)—required post-election 

disclosure of receipts and expenditures by national party 

committees and committees operating in two or more 

states in connection with campaigns for the House of Representatives (repealed by Corrupt Practices Act in 1925);

• Publicity Act Amendments of 1911 (37 Stat. 25)—

extended disclosure requirements to Senate campaigns 

and to pre-election reporting (for nomination, as well as 

general election); also limited House campaign expenditures to $5,000 and Senate campaign expenditures to 

$10,000 (repealed by Corrupt Practices Act in 1925);

• Newberry v. United States (256 U.S. 232 (1921))—the 

Supreme Court held unconstitutional the regulation 

of primary elections, under the 1910 Act, as amended; 

this conclusion was later overruled (or weakened) by the 

Court in United States v. Classic (313 U.S. 299 (1941));

• Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 1070)—

largely revised and codifi ed the provisions of the earlier 

statutes, with little substantive change, except for the 

deletion of the primary election regulations; continued 

the disclosure requirements for multi-state political committees and House and Senate candidates; changed the 

expenditure limitations to conform to state law where 

applicable or, for Senate candidates, $10,000 or three 

cents for each vote cast in the last general election for that 

offi ce, up to $25,000, and, for House candidates, $2,500 

or three cents for each vote cast in the last general election 

for that offi ce, up to $5,000 (repealed by FECA);

• Hatch Act Amendments of 1940 (54 Stat. 767)—

imposed a $5,000 per year limitation on contributions 

to candidates or national committees in connection with 

any campaign for federal offi ce; also set a $3,000,000 

per year limitation on receipts and expenditures of any 

political committee operating in two or more states 

(repealed by the FECA);

• War Labor Disputes Act of 1943 (57 Stat. 167)—prohibited labor unions from making political contributions to 

candidates for federal offi ce (automatically expired six 

months after World War II ended); and

• Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 

159)—made the prohibition on labor union contributions permanent, and expanded the prohibition on 

national banks, corporations, and unions to include 

expenditures in connection with federal campaigns, as 

well as contributions to them (still in eff ect).

Th e law governing campaign fi nance for much of the 

20th century came to be widely viewed as seriously fl awed, 

both because of campaign activities not included in its scope 
96 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

and because of the ease with which its restrictions could be 

circumvented. Th e law’s disclosure provisions and the spending 

limits did not cover presidential and vice presidential candidates, candidates and political committees in primary elections, or political committees operating within only one state. 

Moreover, candidates, political committees, and individuals 

could and commonly did avoid regulation under its provisions. 

Candidates and political committees could circumvent their 

spending limits as well as disclosure requirements by establishing multiple committees operating in single states or in the 

District of Columbia (which had no disclosure requirements). 

Individuals could evade the limits on contributions by giving 

to more than one committee working on behalf of a candidate 

or by routing contributions through additional members of 

the same family.2

 It can be argued that the law was generally 

ineff ective partly because of these and other widely known 

loopholes, and partly because its provisions were never truly 

enforced. No House or Senate candidate was ever prosecuted 

for violation of the Corrupt Practices Act.

Role of the Committee

In the 80th Congress (1947–1948), when the Committee 

on House Administration was created, several bills seeking to amend the Federal Corrupt Practices were referred to 

the Committee’s Subcommittee on Elections, but no action 

was taken on any of them. No campaign fi nance bills were 

referred to the Committee in the next three Congresses. In 

the 84th Congress (1955–1956), the Subcommittee on Elections held hearings on May 18 and July 7, 1955, on H.R. 

3139, to prevent corrupt practices and require fuller, stricter 

disclosure of fi nancial activity.3 No further action was taken 

on that bill.

Eff orts to Replace the Corrupt Practices Act. During 

the 1950s and 1960s, considerable attention was paid to the 

inadequacies of the Corrupt Practices Act. Th e press reported 

evasions of the law, Members of Congress introduced bills 

and committees held hearings, reports were issued on campaign fi nance, and proposals were made to reform it. Th e complaints and proposals generally centered on requiring more 

comprehensive and timely disclosure of campaign receipts 

and disbursements, and imposing limits on contributions and 

expenditures that could be properly enforced and would better 

refl ect the realities of contemporary election campaigns.

It was until the 86th Congress (1959–1960), however, 

that the Subcommittee on Elections become formally 

involved when it held hearings on a Senate-passed bill (S. 

2436) aimed at improving the timeliness, quality, and availability of disclosure information as well as providing limits 

on contributions and expenditures that refl ected changes in 

campaigns since enactment of the Corrupt Practices Act.4 

Once again, no further action was taken.

Th e 87th Congress (1961–1962) saw a similar situation 

as the 86th Congress. Th e Senate again passed a bill to amend 

the Corrupt Practices Act, but S. 2426 was not quite as farreaching as the bill passed by the previous Senate, It changed 

disclosure rules and raised spending limits but left contribution limits untouched. Th e Subcommittee on Elections held 

hearings in 1962 on this bill and several similar House bills.5

Th e Subcommittee also published a comparative analysis of 

the Senate-passed bill, its House companion bill (H.R. 9255), 

and the then current law,6 but did not report the bill.

No campaign fi nance bills were referred to the Committee 

in the 88th Congress (1963–1964), but with the 89th Congress 

(1965–1966), the Committee on House Administration saw a 

signifi cant rise in legislative interest: 26 bills were referred and 

1 bill was reported by the Subcommittee on Elections. Th e 

subcommittee held four days of hearings in the summer of 

1966, signaling the fi rst intensive examination of the myriad 

issues that had been emerging in the 1950s and 1960s.7 Th e 

hearings resulted in a bipartisan bill, sponsored by Subcommittee Chairman Robert T. Ashmore of South Carolina and 

Ranking Member Charles Goodell of New York, which was 

reported by the subcommittee October 4, 1966.8 H.R. 18162, 

the Election Reform Act of 1966, combined ideas proposed by 

President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson, various House members, and subcommittee members and experts. 

It was labeled by one observer as “the most comprehensive 

[campaign reform] bill considered in Congress to that date.”9
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 97

Among the principal provisions of H.R. 18162 were: 

(1) the establishment of an independent, bipartisan Federal 

Election Commission to administer stronger disclosure 

requirements; (2) elimination of the ineff ective expenditure limits of the Corrupt Practices Act; (3) the inclusion 

of primary elections and intrastate committees in federal 

regulation; (4) a requirement for reporting by all campaign 

committees with at least $1,000 in activity aimed at infl uencing federal elections; and (5) a strengthened prohibition on union, corporate, and trade association funding of 

federal elections. Th e latter provision, which would have 

prevented such organizations from paying overhead costs of 

separate segregated funds (i.e., political action committees, 

or PACs), was strongly opposed by organized labor, which, 

at that time, was the dominant force in the PAC arena. 

Some observers saw the provision as a key factor in the 

bill’s failure.10 H.R. 18162 was sent to the full Committee 

in October 1966, and, while no further action was taken 

on it in that Congress, it foreshadowed the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, enacted in 1972.

In the 90th Congress (1967–1968), the Subcommittee 

on Elections picked up where the previous Congress ended 

by again reporting the Ashmore-Goodell bill, as modifi ed in 

subcommittee, in June 1967. Th e new version of the bill, H.R. 

11233, added a provision prohibiting candidates from using 

campaign receipts for personal use. Th e bill was reported by 

the full Committee in June 1968,11 a year after its adoption 

by the subcommittee, making it the fi rst campaign fi nance 

reform measure reported by the Committee. Th e delay in 

Committee action was seen by some observers as a result of 

stalling tactics by organized labor, which objected to a provision prohibiting direct use of union and corporate funds (i.e., 

to support PACs). When the bill was reported by the Committee, that provision had been deleted.12 Th e 90th Congress 

took no further action on the measure.

Th e 91st Congress (1969–1970) was much quieter regarding the campaign fi nance issue. Th e Subcommittee on Elections held hearings on several bills on May 6, 1970,13 but no 

action was taken on any of them.

1970s and FECA. The 92nd Congress (1971–1972) 

enacted the fi rst major revision of federal campaign fi nance 

laws since the 1925 Corrupt Practices Act. Th e Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the result of considerable 

eff ort and activity both in congressional committees and 

the fl oor of both chambers. Th e issue was the dominant legislative concern of the Subcommittee on Elections, which 

held seven days of hearings—June 22–24, July 13–15, and 

July 20, 1971—on numerous bills. Th e primary focus of the 

Committee was on H.R. 8284, a reform bill by Committee 

Chairman Wayne Hays.14

Following the last hearing, the subcommittee, meeting 

in executive session, reported H.R. 8284 to the full Committee on House Administration. Th e Committee marked 

up the bill in executive sessions held between September 

14 and October 5, 1971. On October 4, the Committee 

ordered the introduction of a clean bill, introduced that day 

by Chairman Hays as H.R. 11060, which was reported on 

a 20-4 vote on October 13.15 The bill featured improved 

disclosure and reporting requirements as well as limitations 

on spending in federal elections. Despite this momentum on 

H.R. 11060, many considered the bill inferior to another bill, 

S. 382, which had already passed the Senate.16 Not only were 

the Senate bill’s disclosure and reporting provisions seen as 

stronger, but it established an independent Federal Election 

Commission to supervise disclosure. H.R. 11060 had given 

such authority to the Comptroller General, the Secretary 

of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House (for presidential, 

Senate, and House elections, respectively). Several Committee members urged that the bill be strengthened in the 

“separate views” fi led with the Committee report; Committee 

Republicans sought to substitute the text of S. 382, but were 

defeated on an 8-15 vote.17

By the time the measure reached the House floor, a 

movement to strengthen H.R. 11060 had developed. Most 

of the reporting and disclosure requirements from the Senate 

bill were substituted for those in H.R. 11060, but supervisory 

responsibilities were left with the three offi cers designated in 

the bill. Before passage, the bill was merged with H.R. 11231, 
98 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

a bill reported by the Commerce Committee that included 

new broadcast provisions. Th e new amended version of H.R. 

11060 passed the House November 30, 1971. Th e HouseSenate conference on S. 382 resulted in a measure featuring 

an abolition of the ineff ectual contribution and expenditure 

limits of the Corrupt Practices Act and new limitations on 

broadcast spending by federal candidates. Broadcast spending 

was also addressed through a requirement that broadcasters 

off er the lowest unit rate to political candidates, a policy still 

observed today. Th e most enduring aspect of the FECA in 

its initial form, however, was the systematic, regular reporting and disclosure requirements for federal candidates. Th e 

bill was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on 

February 7, 1972.18

During the second session of the 92nd Congress, the full 

Committee held hearings on June 20, 1972, on a bill—H.R. 

15511—to change the fi ling schedule for reports under the 

FECA.19 No further action was taken on the measure. In one 

additional action, on September 27, 1972, the Committee 

reported H.R. 15276, which clarifi ed that the FECA’s prohibition on government contractors spending money in federal 

elections would not aff ect the specifi c activities exempted 

from the Act’s prohibition on corporate and union spending 

(i.e., communication with members, etc.).20 While the bill 

was reported unanimously in Committee, supported by the 

Nixon Administration, and passed by the House October 2, 

1972, it never reached the Senate fl oor.

Post-FECA.

FECA Amendments of 1974. Campaign fi nance reform 

became a major issue in the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), as 

the unfolding Watergate scandal contributed to a heightened focus on money and politics. Th ere was a growing sense 

that the newly enacted FECA needed to be substantively 

amended. Th e Senate moved quickly and passed S. 372, the 

FECA Amendments of 1973, which included contribution 

and expenditure limits in all federal elections and the creation 

of an independent enforcement agency. Th e Subcommittee on 

Elections held six days of hearings in October and November 

1973 on more than 50 bills, with a focus on the Senate-passed 

bill.21 Observers saw the House as “much more cautious” 

about comprehensive campaign finance reform than the 

Senate,22 with Committee on House Administration Chairman Wayne Hays of Ohio and Subcommittee on Elections 

Chairman John Dent of Pennsylvania both strongly opposed 

to an independent administrative agency and contribution 

limits.23 Th e Committee took no action in the fi rst session 

of the 93rd Congress, beyond the six days of hearings held by 

the Subcommittee on Elections.

In the second session of the 93rd Congress, partly because 

of House inaction on S. 372 and partly because of heightened 

interest in public fi nancing of elections, the Senate Rules and 

Administration Committee reported a new bill, S. 3044, the 

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, which 

incorporated most of the features of S. 372 with the major 

addition of public fi nancing of presidential and congressional 

elections.24 S. 3044——was passed by the Senate April 11, 

1974. Th e Committee on House Administration began a 

series of 21 markup sessions on March 26; the sessions ended 

on July 1, amidst charges of stalling from reform proponents.25 On July 30, 1974, the Committee reported its version 

of the FECA Amendments of 1974—H.R. 16090—by a 21-2 

vote.26 Like the Senate bill, H.R. 16090 imposed limits on 

contributions and expenditures in all federal elections. Unlike 

S. 3044, it provided for public fi nancing only of presidential 

elections. In addition, rather than an independent election 

agency to administer the law, the House bill created a sevenmember supervisory board dominated by Congress, with 

four members appointed by congressional leadership, plus 

the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the Senate, and the 

Clerk of the House. By the time House debate began on H.R. 

16090, Chairman Hays secured Committee agreement to a 

compromise amendment, giving the supervisory board four 

voting members, with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk 

of the House as ex offi cio members only.27 Th is was adopted 

on the House fl oor, and, on August 8, 1974, the House passed 

the amended H.R. 16090 by a 355-48 vote.28

The conference committee (on S. 3044) completed 

its work on October 7, 1974, by dropping public financCAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 99

ing of House and Senate elections, as the House conferees 

insisted upon, but raising expenditure limits from where 

the House bill had set them and creating the independent 

election agency, as in the Senate bill.29 On October 15, 1974, 

President Gerald R. Ford signed the FECA Amendments of 

1974 into law.30

Th e fi rst session of the 94th Congress (1975–1976) found 

the Committee and its Elections subcommittee involved with 

implementing the FECA Amendments of 1974, focusing on 

the initial actions of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 

its commissioners, and its regulations. Th e Subcommittee 

held four days of hearings in March 1975 on the fi rst six 

nominations for FEC commissioners.31 Th e full Committee 

reported H. Res. 314, approving the nominations, on March 

17.32 Th e resolution was adopted by the House on March 19, 

and the nominees were confi rmed on April 10, 1975. Th e 

FEC Commissioners testifi ed before the full Committee on 

January 27, 1976, on 22 proposed regulations on a variety 

of topics.33

Another issue taken up by the Committee during the 

94th Congress was the “point of entry” regulation proposed 

by the FEC, whereby disclosure reports would be fi led by 

Senate and House candidates with the FEC, with copies to 

be made and sent to the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of 

the House, respectively. Under the 1974 FECA Amendments, 

which created the FEC, either chamber could disapprove a 

proposed FEC regulation by a simple majority, known as 

the legislative veto. Th e regulation was unpopular among 

many House members who were thought to prefer giving the 

Clerk of the House a chance to have errors corrected before 

transmittal to the FEC.34 Th e Committee met September 11, 

1975, and voted 18-1 to disapprove the regulation. Meetings 

between Committee Chairman Hays and FEC Chairman 

Th omas Curtis failed to fi nd a compromise, so the Committee on October 9 approved H. Res. 780, formally disapproving the regulation by a unanimous vote (made possible by the 

absence of Bill Frenzel of Minnesota, the lone dissenter).35

Th e resolution failed when it was initially brought up on 

the House fl oor under suspension of the rules on October 

20, but it passed the House on October 22, 1975, under a 

special rule.36

FECA Amendments of 1976. Th e second session of the 

94th Congress was largely taken up with the 1976 amendments to the FECA necessitated by the Supreme Court’s 

ruling in Buckley v. Valeo on January 30, 1976 (424 U.S. 1 

(1976)). Th at decision, among other things, declared the FEC 

as constituted to be unconstitutional, as it was an executive 

branch agency whose members were not appointed fully 

by the President. Th e ruling also struck down expenditure 

limits enacted under the 1974 Amendments, but generally 

upheld contribution limits. Congress acted fairly quickly after 

the Buckley decision to reconstitute the FEC so its members 

were chosen by the President with Senate approval, and to 

remove the expenditure limits imposed in 1974. Th e Committee held markup sessions between February 23 and March 

10, and reported H.R. 12406 on March 17, 1976.37 Th e bill 

closely followed S. 3065, as reported March 2 from the Senate 

Rules and Administration Committee.38 Th e House passed 

H.R. 12406 on April 1 after adopting several amendments to 

make the bill more closely resemble the Senate version. Th e 

conference version of the 1976 FECA amendments was fi led 

April 28;39 it was considered to be closer to the House bill as 

passed in that it continued Congress’s authority to overturn 

regulations and placed certain restrictions on FEC advisory 

opinions.40 Th e bill became public law on May 11, 1976.41

Renewed Push for Public Financing of Congressional 

Elections. Th e 95th Congress (1977–1978) saw a renewed 

push for public fi nancing of congressional elections. Reformers who had been unable to achieve that goal in prior Congresses were now aided by support from President Jimmy 

Carter, Speaker Th omas P. (Tip) O’Neill of Massachusetts, 

and new Committee on House Administration Chairman 

Frank Th ompson of New Jersey. Th e Subcommittee on Elections was not reestablished in the 95th Congress, but the full 

Committee held seven days of hearings between May 18 and 

July 12, 1977, on public fi nancing of congressional elections 

and other campaign fi nance proposals.42 Th e focus of the 

hearings was on H.R. 5157, which was sponsored by Morris 
100 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Udall of Arizona and John Anderson of Illinois, and 8 identical bills, which had a cumulative total of 123 cosponsors.

A proposal for partial public funding of House general 

elections, supported by the House leadership, was scheduled 

for markup by the Committee on House Administration 

on October 25, 1977. Opponents succeeded in amending 

the proposal, however, adding coverage of primary elections 

and extending fi nancing to a wider range of (minor party) 

candidates, both seen as designed to lessen support for public 

fi nancing among incumbent Members. Following adoption 

of the two amendments, Chairman Th ompson decided not to 

take up the bill, saying there were not enough votes in committee to report a public fi nancing bill at that time.43

On March 16, 1978, the Committee reported a bill 

initially intended as the counterpart to S. 926, passed by 

the Senate in the fi rst session and focused on simplifying 

reporting and disclosure requirements under the FECA.44

As reported H.R. 11315 went further than the Senate bill by 

reducing limits on contributions to and by parties and political action committees (PACs), reducing party-coordinated 

expenditure limits, and prohibiting intraparty transfers of 

funds for purposes of contributions to candidates. While the 

expressed intention of the added provisions was to reduce 

special interest influence and campaign spending, some 

Republicans on the Committee and in the House interpreted 

the measure as being prompted by majority concerns about 

growing Republican success in party and PAC fundraising, 

and they asserted that it was really aimed at reducing electoral 

opportunities for Republican members.45 Th e ill will caused 

by the reported bill contributed to the defeat of the rule for 

consideration of H.R. 11315 on March 21, 1978, thereby killing not only that bill but also the leadership-supported public 

fi nancing amendment intended for fl oor debate.

In the 96th Congress (1979–1980), the push for public 

fi nancing of congressional elections, which had been gathering momentum since the 93rd Congress, came to a halt 

when the Committee on House Administration voted against 

reporting H.R. 1, a public fi nance bill. Th e Committee held 

fi ve days of hearings between March 15 and March 27, 1979, 

focused on H.R. 1, which was supported by House leadership 

and which had nearly 160 cosponsors.46 Supporters of the bill 

sought to make it more palatable to opponents, but by the 

time the Committee met on May 24, 1979, their eff orts had 

failed. Added to opposition based on using tax money to pay 

for election campaigns were the more parochial concerns of 

some Members about helping to fi nance their challengers’ 

campaigns and thus reducing the incumbent fundraising 

advantage. The Committee voted 8-17 against reporting 

H.R. 1, thus ending serious congressional discussion of public 

fi nancing of congressional elections until the 100th Congress 

(1987–1988).47

FECA Amendments of 1979. Th e 96th Congress did 

include a notable victory for campaign fi nance advocates 

with enactment of the 1979 FECA Amendments. By putting aside the controversial issues of public fi nancing and 

further reducing permissible contributions by political parties and PACs, the House and Senate were able to reach 

bipartisan agreement on provisions aimed at reducing 

burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 

FECA, and giving state and local parties greater latitude to 

engage in grassroots campaigning that could aff ect federal 

elections. Following a markup on July 31 and August 1, 

1979, the Committee on House Administration reported 

H.R. 5010 on September 7.48 Th e measure passed the House 

under suspension of the rules on September 10. Informal 

discussions were held between the House and Senate to iron 

out diff erences between H.R. 5010 and the Senate version 

as reported from the Rules and Administration Committee. Th e revised version of H.R. 5010 was brought up in the 

House and Senate on December 18 and 20, respectively, and 

passed both houses. Th e measure was signed by President 

Carter on January 8, 1980.49

Onset of the Political Action Committee (PAC) Issue. 

One campaign fi nance issue arose during the 96th Congress 

as a fl oor amendment to the FEC authorization bill (S. 832) 

reported by the Committee on House Administration. Th e 

text of H.R. 4970, which became known as the Obey-Railsback proposal (for its sponsors, David Obey of Wisconsin 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 101

and Th omas Railsback of Illinois), was added to S. 832 on 

the House fl oor on October 17, 1979.50 Th e measure, which 

lowered the PAC contribution limit and placed an aggregate 

PAC receipts limit on congressional candidates, was aimed at 

reducing the perceived infl uence of “special interests” in the 

electoral process. While the underlying bill never received 

action in the Senate, that vote ushered in a decades-long 

focus in Congress on the role of PACs in campaign fi nancing, which the Committee on House Administration would 

return to again and again.

FEC Oversight. On June 18, 1979, Chairman Th ompson established fi ve task forces to exercise oversight of the 

Federal Election Commission: Task Force on Audits and 

Review (May 21, 1980); Task Force on Enforcement (June 

18–19, 1980); Task Force on Information Offi ce and Public 

Disclosure (December 5, 1979, April 21, May 12, and June 

30, 1980); Task Force on Public Financing of Presidential 

Campaigns (no hearings); and Task Force on Administration 

and Clearinghouse (May 14 and July 30, 1980).51

1980s and Congressional Stalemate on Campaign 

Finance Issues. During the 1980s, the campaign fi nance 

debate continued the focus begun in the 96th Congress (via 

the Obey-Railsback amendment) on the appropriate role of 

PACs (i.e., special interests) in fi nancing elections for federal 

offi ce. In the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the Committee 

established the Task Force on Elections to handle campaign 

fi nance and other election issues. Th e task force held two days 

of hearings in the second session: one, on June 10, 1982, on 

contribution limits under FECA, focused on PACs; the other, 

on July 28, 1982, on independent expenditures (spending by 

outside groups in support of or opposition to a federal candidate that is not coordinated in any way with a candidate and 

is subject to no limits on amounts spent).52 No further action 

was taken on any proposed legislation.

Th e Task Force on Elections was again revived by the 

Committee on House Administration in the 98th Congress 

(1983–1984). Th e task force held eight days of hearings on 

campaign fi nance issues, focused on the role of PACs and 

the political parties and ways to increase the direct role 

of individual citizens. Th e fi rst four hearings were held in 

Washington, followed by fi eld hearings in Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, and Atlanta.53 Neither the task force nor the 

Committee took any further action.

For the 99th Congress (1985–1986), the Committee on 

House Administration established a Subcommittee on Elections instead of the task force of the prior two Congresses. Th e 

subcommittee held no hearings on campaign fi nance issues 

per se, but it did hold an oversight hearing on the FEC on 

November 7, 1985,54 in addition to routine hearings on FEC 

budget authorization.

In the 100th Congress (1987–1988), the Subcommittee 

on Elections held fi ve days of hearings on campaign fi nance 

reform.55 Th e stalemate of recent Congresses continued, however, with members in the majority, led by Subcommittee 

Chair Allan B. Swift of Washington, insisting on a comprehensive solution to issues presented in the campaign fi nance 

debate, especially regarding spending limits in congressional 

elections and curbs on the role of PACs. Members in the 

minority, led by Subcommittee Ranking Member William 

Th omas of California, urged that more limited measures 

be enacted where consensus existed. In the second session, 

the Subcommittee considered two minor bills and reported 

one to the House. On August 2, 1988, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing and marked up H.R. 4952 (sponsored by Bill 

Th omas), which was aimed at preventing state elected offi cials 

from transferring funds raised for state offi ces to prospective 

campaigns they might wage for federal offi ce.56 Th e bill was 

ordered reported by the Committee on House Administration on August 3 and passed by the House under suspension 

of the rules August 8, 1988; no further action was taken on 

the measure. On September 8, 1988, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing on H.R. 5121, a bill sponsored by Committee 

Chairman Frank Annunzio of Illinois, to require publication of certain information about PACs.57 On September 14, 

1988, the bill was amended and forwarded to the Committee, 

which recommitted it to the Subcommittee; a further hearing58 and markup was held by the Subcommittee that same 

day, but no further action was taken.
102 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

1990s and Renewed Push for Public Financing and 

Expenditure Limits. The sense of partisan stalemate on 

campaign fi nance reform was so great at the start of the 101st

Congress (1989–1990) that House Speaker James Wright 

of Texas established a Bipartisan Task Force on Campaign 

Reform to seek consensus legislation. Th e Task Force was 

headed by Subcommittee on Elections Chairman Allan Swift 

and Representative Guy Vander Jagt of Michigan. Th e Committee was thus formally bypassed in the eff ort to produce a 

bill that could pass the House, although the Subcommittee 

made staff and resources available to assist the Task Force 

throughout its existence. Th e Task Force, however, was unable 

to reach a consensus, and the Democratic and Republican 

leadership off ered their own bills when the House debated 

campaign fi nance reform in August 1990. On August 3, the 

House passed H.R. 5400, sponsored by Swift and supported 

by the House Democratic leadership, which featured voluntary spending limits in House general elections in exchange 

for certain public benefi ts and curbs on PACs.59 A conference 

committee was appointed to reconcile the diff erences between 

H.R. 5400 and the Senate-passed S. 137, but the committee 

never met.

Th e continued pressure for campaign fi nance reform as 

the 102nd Congress (1991–1992) led Speaker Th omas Foley 

of Washington to direct the Committee to revive a special 

task force within the Committee to address the issue. Th e 

Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform, led by Chairman 

Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut and Ranking Member Bill 

Th omas, held eight days of hearings in the spring of 1991, 

including fi eld hearings in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Madison, 

Wisconsin.60 At the end of the process the Task Force found 

itself unable to reach a bipartisan proposal, and the Democrats and Republicans prepared to off er their own legislation. 

With Senate passage of its version of campaign fi nance reform 

(S. 3) in May 1991, the focus was on the House. Task Force 

Chairman Gejdenson and the House Democratic leadership introduced H.R. 3750 on November 12, 1991, and the 

bill was marked up by the Committee on November 14. As 

reported, by a 14-9 vote, the bill featured spending limits 

in House general elections in exchange for matching public 

funds, and lower postal rates and curbs on PACs.61 Th e House 

debated and passed H.R. 3750 on November 25, 1991, by 

a 273-156 vote after defeating the Republican alternative 

off ered by Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois.62 Unlike 

in the 101st Congress, the House and Senate conferees on 

H.R. 3750 and S. 3 met and reached agreement on a bill that 

left House and Senate spending limits and benefi ts intact for 

each body, in addition to curbs on PACs and other features.63

Th e conference report was passed by the House and Senate 

in April 1992, but the ultimate bill was vetoed by President 

George H. W. Bush, who objected to both the public fi nancing and spending limits provisions; his veto was sustained.64

In one additional action on campaign fi nance in the 

102nd Congress, the House Administration Subcommittee 

on Elections held a hearing on the status and operation of the 

presidential public fi nance system on May 1, 1991.65 One of 

the concerns expressed at the hearings was the practical eff ects 

on candidates if a shortfall existed in the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund. On November 7, 1991,66 the Subcommittee 

on Elections held a markup and sent to the full Committee 

H.R. 3644, sponsored by Subcommittee Chairman Swift, 

to allow the Treasury Department to take into account estimated amounts from the dollar checkoff in the coming year, 

in order to avoid potential cutbacks in funds distributed to 

candidates. Th e bill also required candidates receiving public 

funds to use closed-captioning in broadcast advertising. Th e 

bill was reported by the Committee on November 19, 1991. 

Th e rule (H. Res. 288) for the bill’s consideration was placed 

on the House calendar but not acted upon.

Reform advocates picked up in the 103rd Congress (1993–

1994) where they had left off in the 102nd Congress, hoping 

that President Bill Clinton’s support could make the crucial 

diff erence in enacting legislation. Th e Senate passed S. 3 in 

June 1993, and House reform advocates rallied around H.R. 

3. Both bills were based on the vetoed bill from the 102nd Congress. Th e Committee held no formal hearings on the issue, 

but its members were involved in negotiations throughout 

1993. Th e Committee met November 10, 1993, to consider 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 103

a substitute version of H.R. 3, as well as a Republican alternative, H.R. 3470, which was off ered by Minority Leader 

Michel, and a bipartisan alternative, H.R. 2469, sponsored 

by Representatives Michael Synar of Oklahoma and Robert 

Livingston of Louisiana. Neither of the two alternatives contained the controversial spending limits and public benefi ts 

in H.R. 3. On November 10, the Committee voted (12-7) 

to report H.R. 3, featuring voluntary House spending limits 

in exchange for communication vouchers (based on matching donations), and a cap on PAC and large donor receipts 

for House candidates.67 On November 22, 1993, the House 

passed H.R. 3 on a 255-175 vote, setting the stage for a conference with the Senate.68 However, diff erences over fi nancing 

public benefi ts and the extent of curbs on PACs kept House 

and Senate negotiators at loggerheads until the end of the 

second session when a compromise was announced. Th e issue 

died when a Republican fi libuster in the Senate kept the Senate from formally appointing conferees.

Republican Control of the House. Th e political landscape changed dramatically in the 104th Congress (1995–

1996), with Republican control of both chambers and with 

little interest on the part of the Republican leadership in either 

spending limits or public fi nancing, the key objectives of the 

reform advocates since the 1970s. Th e House Oversight Committee, as it was renamed in the 104th Congress, held four 

hearings: on November 2 and 16, 1995, on campaign fi nance 

legislation;69 on December 12, 1995, on the role of political 

parties in fi nancing elections;70 and on March 21, 1996, on 

political activity of labor unions.71 On July 9, 1996, H.R. 

3760, sponsored by House Oversight Committee Chairman 

Bill Th omas, was introduced on behalf of the Republican leadership. It refl ected a diff erent approach to campaign fi nance 

reform than the bills passed in prior Congresses. It called for 

in-district funding requirements, equal contribution limits for 

PACs and individual citizens, a greater role for political party 

funding, higher contribution limits for donations to opponents of wealthy candidates, and curbs on party soft money 

and bundling. Th e Committee held a markup of H.R. 3760 

on July 10, 1996.72 Th e Committee reported the measure by 

a vote of 6-5.73 Th e Rules Committee replaced the bill with 

H.R. 3820, which added a provision to curb the political use 

of union dues. H.R. 3820 was defeated by the House on July 

25, 1996, on a 162-259 vote. H.R. 3505, the Democratic 

alternative to the legislation was also defeated that day.

Aftermath of 1996 Election and Enactment of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Interest in 

campaign fi nance reform escalated sharply in response to the 

1996 elections during which large sums of election-related 

money were raised and spent outside the purview of federal 

election law (i.e., soft money). Th ere were also allegations 

concerning illegal foreign campaign money raised by the 

Democratic National Committee. As the 105th Congress 

(1997–1998) opened, reform supporters vowed major legislative eff orts on the issue of unregulated election-related 

money, while House and Senate leaders expressed their desire 

to make investigating the foreign campaign money allegations a priority. More than 100 reform bills were introduced 

in the House. From the outset, media attention focused on 

the Shays-Meehan bill sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. Its Senate companion was the McCain-Feingold 

bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain of Arizona and 

Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. Th ose measures, which were 

endorsed by President Bill Clinton in his 1997 State of the 

Union Address,74 sought to ban party soft money and to redefi ne “express advocacy” so that more election-related activity 

would be regulated under federal election law. In the face of 

House leadership reluctance to schedule debate on campaign 

reform, and its resistance to the Shays-Meehan approach in 

particular, several task forces were created to seek consensus 

on proposals. Most notable of these was the House Freshman 

Bipartisan Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform which 

held forums and produced H.R. 2183, co-sponsored by Task 

Force Chairmen Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Th omas H. 

Allen of Maine. Th at bill took a more moderated approach 

than Shays-Meehan in curbing party soft money by only 

requiring disclosure of election-related activity outside the 

framework of federal election law and proposing an increase 
104 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

in hard money contribution limits to provide incentives for 

more activity to be conducted under federal election law.

Th e House Oversight Committee held a series of hearings on campaign fi nance reform on October 30 and 31 and 

November 6 and 7, 1997.75 Reform supporters sought to force 

a scheduled fl oor vote with a petition to discharge various bills 

from committee on the last day of the fi rst session. Speaker 

Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Republican leaders said the 

House would vote on reform legislation by March 1998. Th e 

House Oversight Committee continued its hearings in the 

second session, on February 5 and 26 and March 5, 1998.76 

On March 18, 1998, the Committee reported H.R. 3485, 

sponsored by Chairman Bill Th omas and supported by the 

Republican leadership, to ban party-raised soft money, adjust 

contribution limits, protect dissenting workers and stockholders from political use of union and corporate money, guard 

against vote fraud, and require issue advocacy disclosure.77

Th e Committee’s reported bill was amended slightly before 

it reached the House fl oor in part to add a provision to ban 

state party as well as national party soft money. Th e revised 

bill took the form of H.R. 3581, also sponsored by Chairman 

Th omas. On March 30, 1998, the Republican leadership 

brought four campaign fi nance bills sponsored by Chairman 

Th omas to the fl oor under suspension of the rules. Two were 

defeated: H.R. 3581, by a 74-337 vote, and H.R. 2608, to 

prohibit political use of involuntary union dues, by a 166-246 

vote. Two noncontroversial bills were passed that day: H.R. 

34, to prohibit contributions from noncitizens, by a 369-43 

vote, and H.R. 3582, to strengthen reporting and disclosure 

under federal election law, by a 405-6 vote.78

Th e second phase of House activity developed out of 

reform supporters’ revival of the discharge petition for H. Res. 

259. Th e petition sought to allow consideration of the Republican leadership’s proposal, the freshmen bipartisan measure 

(H.R. 2183), and the Shays-Meehan proposal (H.R. 3526). 

As the petition drive neared the needed 218 votes, Speaker 

Gingrich announced: (1) that the House would reconsider 

the issue by May 1998 and (2) an elaborate procedure for 

consideration. Th e freshman bipartisan bill, H.R. 2183, was 

designated as the base bill, and amendments and substitutes 

would be allowed. Ultimately, after a protracted debate and 

complex procedural hurdles, the House passed the ShaysMeehan substitute on August 3, 1998, by a vote of 237-186, 

after 6 days of debate, adoption of 23 amendments, and 

rejection of 18 others. On August 6, the House passed H.R. 

2183, as modifi ed by the text of the amended Shays-Meehan 

substitute, on a vote of 252-179. Th e bill, the companion to 

the Senate’s McCain-Feingold bill, featured curbs on party 

soft money and election-related issue advocacy. Th e Senate, 

however, could not agree on a bill in the 105th Congress, and 

no bill was enacted.79

In the 106th Congress (1999–2000), the drive for campaign fi nance reform picked up where it had left off in the 

105th. The Committee held hearings on June 17 and 29 

and July 13 and 22, 1999.80 On August 2, the Committee 

ordered four bills reported in order to move the debate to the 

House fl oor. H.R. 2668 (Th omas), to improve enforcement 

and disclosure in the FECA, was reported favorably.81 Two 

other bills were reported without recommendation: H.R. 

1867 (Hutchinson), based on the freshman bipartisan bill of 

the 105th Congress;82 and H.R. 1922 (Doolittle), to remove 

contribution limits and generally deregulate the campaign 

fi nance system.83 H.R. 417 (Shays-Meehan), based on the 

bill passed by the House in the 105th Congress, was reported 

unfavorably.84 Th e proposed rule for fl oor debate, however, 

allowed for consideration of the Shays-Meehan bill as the base 

bill, along with 10 amendments and 3 substitutes (comprised 

of the texts of the other bills reported by the Committee on 

House Administration). On September 14, 1999, the House 

passed H.R. 417 on a 252-177 vote with three perfecting 

amendments—two on foreign money in U.S. elections and 

one on reimbursement for political use of government vehicles. As passed by the House, H.R. 417 featured provisions to 

broaden the defi nition of express advocacy, ban national party 

and federal candidate soft money raising, and curb state party 

soft money spending on federal-related activity.85 Once again, 

the Senate could not agree on a campaign fi nance measure, 

thus insuring a return to the issue in the 107th Congress.

2000s and Attainment of Campaign Finance Reform.

Th e Senate broke its long stalemate early in the 107th Congress 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 105

when it passed the McCain-Feingold campaign fi nance bill, 

shifting the focus to the House. Th e Committee began a 

series of hearings on campaign fi nance reform on March 17, 

2001, in Phoenix, Arizona.86 On May 1, during the second 

hearing of the series, supporters of McCain-Feingold and its 

House companion, H.R. 380 (Shays-Meehan), urged the 

House to act by Memorial Day.87 Chairman Robert Ney of 

Ohio stated the Committee would report a bill to the House 

by the end of June 2001. A third hearing, on constitutional 

issues, was held June 14,88 and a fourth, on June 21, included 

testimony from House Members.89 On June 28, the Committee completed its hearings by taking further testimony 

from Members.90 It then proceeded to markup H.R. 2360 

(Ney-Wynn, sponsored by Robert Ney of Ohio and Albert 

Wynn of Maryland), which featured limits on soft money 

donations to national parties, disclosure of election-related 

issue advocacy, and increases in some hard money contribution limits. Th e Committee ordered it reported favorably to 

the House.91

Th e Committee also ordered favorably reported H.R. 

2356, a modifi ed Shays-Meehan bill, which closely resembled 

S. 27 (McCain-Feingold) as passed by the Senate in April.92

Th e House scheduled debate on the Ney-Wynn and ShaysMeehan bills on July 12, 2001, but debate failed to materialize that day when the House rejected the proposed rule. In 

the wake of the defeat of the rule, the House leadership would 

not commit to revisit the issue. Supporters of Shays-Meehan 

then looked to a discharge petition to force reconsideration. 

On January 24, 2002, House advocates secured the last 

four signatures necessary for the discharge petition to force 

a fl oor vote on the bill. Under the discharge petition rule, 

Representatives Shays and Meehan, Committee on House 

Administration Chairman Ney, and Majority Leader Dick 

Armey of Texas would be permitted to off er substitutes with 

the proposal receiving the most votes becoming the base bill, 

subject to amendments. On February 13, 2002, the House 

agreed to a Shays-Meehan substitute amendment (240-191), 

after rejecting substitutes off ered by Armey (179-249) and 

Ney (53-377). Th e House then agreed to four perfecting 

amendments and rejected eight others, after which H.R. 

2356, as amended, was passed on a 240-189 vote. On March 

20, the Senate passed H.R. 2356 on a 60-40 vote, thus obviating the need for a conference. On March 27, 2002, President 

George H. W. Bush signed H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), into law.93

Post-BCRA Campaign Finance Issues. As the 108th 

Congress (2003–2004) began, the political community was 

adjusting to the new law that took eff ect on November 6, 

2002, while carefully watching the courts for their rulings on 

the new act’s constitutionality. On December 10, 2003, the 

Supreme Court largely upheld BCRA in McConnell v. FEC 

(549 U.S. 93). Th e Committee on House Administration 

began an examination of the role of tax-exempt “527” political organizations since enactment of BCRA. On November 

20, 2003, the Committee authorized its Chairman to issue 

subpoenas to compel testimony from several groups that had 

declined to testify in its scheduled hearing that day.94 On 

May 20, 2004, the Committee held an oversight hearing on 

the FEC and the 527 rulemaking process, prompted by the 

agency’s postponement of a decision on a proposed regulation 

to redefi ne “political committee” to include activity by many 

527 groups then in operation.95

In the wake of the 2004 elections, when more than $400 

million was raised and spent by 527 organizations outside of 

federal election law regulation, the 109th Congress (2005–

2006) examined the role of 527 groups in federal elections. 

Th e Committee held a hearing April 20, 2005, on regulation of 527 organizations that focused on H.R. 513 (ShaysMeehan) and H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn). Whereas H.R. 513 

sought to bring more 527 groups under the purview of FECA 

regulation, H.R. 1316 embodied a more indirect approach by 

loosening restrictions on funding sources within the FECA. 

On June 8, 2005, the Committee held a markup on H.R. 

1316.96 H.R. 1316, as amended, was favorably reported on 

June 22, 2005.97 On June 29, the Committee held a markup 

of H.R. 513 (Shays-Meehan), and ordered it reported (as 

amended to refl ect the sponsors’ changes) without recommendation.98 On April 5, 2006, the House passed H.R. 513 

(Shays-Meehan), as amended, by a 218-209 vote. Th e text 

of H.R. 513 was also included in H.R. 4975 (Dreier), the 
106 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House Republican leadership’s lobbying and ethics reform 

bill. On May 3, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4975, the 

Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, 

which included the text of H.R. 513. Th is set the stage for a 

conference with the Senate, because the Senate-passed lobbying reform bill did not contain the 527 provisions.99 Th e 

conference never met, leaving the 527 issue unresolved.

Th e issue of regulation of Internet communications was 

addressed at a Committee hearing on September 22, 2005. 

On March 9, 2006, the Committee favorably reported H.R. 

1606, sponsored by Jeb Hensarling of Texas, which would 

have exempted Internet communications from regulation 

under federal campaign fi nance laws.100 It was expected to be 

considered by the House, but further legislative action was 

postponed indefi nitely following the FEC’s approval of new 

regulations in March 2006 to regulate only paid advertisements placed on another’s website.

Democratic majorities elected in the 2006 House and 

Senate elections suggested the potential for renewed interest 

in campaign fi nance during the 110th Congress. Much of 

the legislative activity on the issue occurred tangentially, as 

Congress enacted the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) in September 2007. A leadership initiative that focused primarily on lobbying and ethics, 

HLOGA contained provisions requiring additional disclosure 

of lobbyists’ campaign contributions and bundling activities.101 HLOGA also restricted travel aboard private aircraft 

for campaign purposes.

Th e 110th Congress enacted only one other change to 

campaign fi nance law. P.L. 110-433, which originated as 

H.R. 6296, extended until 2013 the FEC’s authority to 

conduct the Administrative Fine Program (AFP). Th e AFP, 

which would have expired at the end of 2008, sets standard 

penalties for routine reporting violations and requires fewer 

resources than the Commission’s full enforcement process. 

Committee on House Administration Chairman Robert 

A. Brady of Pennsylvania sponsored H.R. 6296, but it was 

not considered by the Committee. Th e measure passed the 

House by voice vote under suspension of the rules on July 15, 

2008.102 After Senate passage of an identical bill by unanimous consent on October 2, 2008, President George W. Bush 

signed H.R. 6296 into law on October 16, 2008.103

During the 110th Congress, the House passed three other 

campaign fi nance bills, but none received consideration in the 

Senate. Although Committee members were involved in fl oor 

debate on all three, the Committee on House Administration offi cially reported only one of those bills (H.R. 3032). 

All three passed under suspension of the rules and by voice 

votes. H.R. 3032, sponsored by Representative Walter Jones 

of North Carolina, would have permitted candidates to designate an individual (other than the campaign treasurer) to 

spend campaign funds if the candidate died. Th e Committee 

favorably reported an amended version of the bill by voice 

vote on April 22, 2008.104 The amended version of H.R. 

3032 made slight adjustments to the proposed process for 

designating an individual other than the treasurer to disburse 

campaign funds. Th e House passed the amended version of 

the bill on July 15, 2008.105

Th e second bill was H.R. 3093, the House version of the 

FY2008 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

appropriations bill, which contained an amendment sponsored by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana that would 

have prohibited spending funds for criminal enforcement of 

BCRA’s electioneering communication provision.106 However, the provision was not included in companion Senate 

legislation or the FY2008 consolidated appropriations law.107

Th e third House bill, H.R. 2630, sponsored by Representative Adam Schiff of California, would have prohibited 

certain political committees from paying candidate spouses 

for campaign work. Th e bill also would have required disclosure of campaign payments to other family members. H.R. 

2630 passed the House on July 23, 2007.108 

In the only House hearing related to campaign fi nance 

in the 110th Congress, the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections held an oversight session on 

automated political telephone calls (“robo calls”) in December 

2007.109 In addition to providing background information 

about the use of automated calls in campaigns, Members and 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 107

witnesses at the hearing considered whether, or if, automated 

calls could be constitutionally restricted. Some Members also 

emphasized the value of offi cial (franked) automated calls to 

arrange telephone-based town hall meetings. 

Th e 110th Congress concluded without additional House 

activity on campaign fi nance issues.

Citizens United and a Changing Campaign Finance 

Landscape After 2010

Th e Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens 

United v. Federal Election Commission was one of the most signifi cant changes in campaign fi nance policy in decades.110 In 

fact, the policy and legal landscape arguably had not changed 

as substantially since the Court considered FECA in Buckley

(1976). Responding to Citizens United and related legal and 

regulatory developments occupied most congressional attention to campaign fi nance matters—including for the Committee on House Administration—during the 111th Congress 

and into the 112th Congress.111

Most notably, the Citizens United decision lifted the 

long-standing FECA prohibition on corporations and unions 

using their general treasury funds for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. As noted previously, independent expenditures explicitly call for election 

or defeat of political candidates (known as express112 advocacy), may occur at any time, and are usually (but not always) 

broadcast advertisements. Th ey must also be uncoordinated 

with the campaign in question.113 Electioneering communications are defi ned only as broadcast advertising, are aired 

during specifi c pre-election windows, and might discuss a 

candidate, but do not explicitly call for election or defeat 

(known as issue advocacy).114

Most congressional attention responding to the ruling 

focused on the DISCLOSE Act, introduced in the House 

as H.R. 5175 by Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Th e Committee on House Administration was actively 

involved in considering the legislation. On February 3, 2010, 

the Committee and the House Judiciary Committee held the 

fi rst House hearings (separately) on Citizens United; both 

sessions included discussion of themes later found in the 

DISCLOSE Act. Th e Committee on House Administration 

held two hearings on H.R. 5175 specifi cally, on May 6, 2010, 

and May 11, 2010.115 Th e committee held a markup on May 

20, 2010, when H.R. 5175 was ordered favorably reported, as 

amended.116 After the Committee on House Administration 

reported117 an amended version of H.R. 5175 on May 25, 

the House of Representatives passed the bill, with additional 

amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote.118 By a 

57-41 vote, the Senate declined to invoke cloture on companion bill S. 3628 on July 27, 2010.119 A second cloture vote 

failed (59-39) on September 23, 2010.120

Although Citizens United was the most notable campaign fi nance event during the 111th Congress, before and 

after the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision the Committee on House Administration was engaged in various campaign fi nance matters. During the 111th Congress, on March 

25, 2009, the Committee reported H.R. 749, sponsored by 

Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina, by voice vote 

and without amendment. Th e bill was virtually identical to 

H.R. 3032, also sponsored by Representative Jones and, as 

discussed above, passed the House during the 110th Congress. 

Like its predecessor, H.R. 749 would have permitted the 

candidate to designate an individual other than the treasurer 

to spend campaign funds after the candidate’s death. On 

April 22, 2009, H.R. 749 passed the House by voice vote 

and under suspension of the rules. Th e measure was subject 

to only brief debate and received bipartisan support. Th e bill 

did not receive consideration in the Senate.

Th e Committee also considered H.R. 512, which would 

have prohibited “chief State election administration offi cials” 

(e.g., Secretaries of State) from “tak[ing] an active part” in 

managing or otherwise being involved in federal election 

campaigns if the official “has supervisory authority” for 

administering the relevant election.121 Although primarily an election administration bill, H.R. 512 proposed to 

amend FECA and was, therefore, tangentially related to campaign fi nance policy. At a June 10 markup, some Committee Members expressed concern that H.R. 512 appeared to 

presume that election offi cials could not objectively separate 
108 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

campaign activities and election-administration duties, and 

might unnecessarily limit election offi cials’ political activities. Representative Daniel Lungren of California, Ranking 

Member of the Committee on House Administration, reiterated those themes during fl oor debate. By contrast, Committee Member and bill sponsor Representative Susan Davis of 

California countered that the measure was reasonably limited 

to thwarting potential corruption and designed to enhance 

integrity in the electoral process. Th e House passed H.R. 512 

(296-129) on September 29, 2010. It did not receive Senate 

consideration.

After the DISCLOSE Act stalled in the 111th Congress, 

momentum on campaign fi nance issues appeared to fade 

early in the 112th Congress. Th e upcoming 2012 elections 

and ongoing interest in the aftermath of Citizens United, 

however, kept campaign finance issues before Congress. 

Committee activity on campaign fi nance issues during the 

fi rst session of the 112th Congress occurred primarily through 

two Subcommittee on Elections hearings, one on the FEC 

and one on H.R. 672, which proposed to eliminate the EAC 

and had tangential implications for the FEC. 

Th e FEC oversight hearing—the fi rst major event of 

this type for the committee since the immediate aftermath 

of BCRA enactment in 2002—occurred in November 2011. 

On November 3, Chairman Gregg Harper convened the 

Subcommittee on Elections hearing. Much of the hearing, which featured testimony from FEC commissioners, 

emphasized Committee questions about transparency in 

the agency’s enforcement process. Following the hearing, 

on December 2, 2011, the FEC released more than 1,300 

pages of documents concerning its audit, enforcement, 

and compliance processes. Th e FEC redacted portions of 

the documents, taking the position that releasing some 

information about the enforcement process could inform 

would-be violators of the cost of running afoul of Federal 

Election Campaign Act or FEC regulations.122 Consultations between the Committee and the FEC continued into 

2012, resulting in additional information being provided to 

the committee and the public.123

The H.R. 672 Subcommittee on Elections hearing 

occurred on April 14, 2011. Primarily devoted to terminating 

the EAC, the bill (sponsored by Representative Gregg Harper 

of Mississippi) had tangential campaign fi nance implications 

because it proposed to transfer some EAC functions to the 

FEC. Th e full committee marked up the bill on May 25, 

2011. An attempt to pass a favorably reported, amended version of the bill under suspension of the rules failed (235-187) 

the House on June 22, 2011.124

Endnotes

1 43 Stat. 1070 (Feb. 28, 1925); and 54 Stat. 767 (July 19, 1940).

2 Dollar Politics, 3rd ed. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 

Inc., 1982), pp. 4–6.

3 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearings, 84th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 1955 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 84 HHad-T.17); and July 7, 1955 

(Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 84 HHad-T.19).

4 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Federal Elections Act of 1960, hearing on S. 

2436, H.R. 9924, H.R. 9938, and H.R. 9944, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., 

Aug. 25, 1960 (Washington: GPO, 1960).

5 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Federal Elections Act, hearing on H.R. 9255 

and related bills, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 28, 1962 (Washington: 

GPO, 1962).

6 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Comparative Analysis of S. 2426, H.R. 9255, 

and Existing Law, committee print, 87th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1962).

7 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Reform Act of 1966, hearing on H.R. 

15317 and related bills, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., July 21, Aug. 17, 22, 

and 25, 1966 (Washington: GPO, 1966).

8 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Reform Act of 1966, committee print, 

89th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1966).

9 Herbert E. Alexander, Money in Politics (Washington: Public 

Aff airs Press, 1972), p. 215.

10 Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and the Courts: Th e 

Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York: Praeger, 

1988), p. 31. 

11 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Reform Act of 1968, report to 

accompany H.R. 11233, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 90-1593 

(Washington: GPO, 1968).
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 109

12 Alexander, Money in Politics, p. 233.

13 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Calendar 

of Business, Ninety-First Congress (Washington: GPO, 1971), pp. 

27-28 (H.R. 12773, H.R. 14120, H.R. 14374, H.R. 14494, H.R. 

14817, H.R. 15483, and H.R. 15894).

14 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, To Limit Campaign Expenditures, hearing on 

H.R. 8284, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., June 22–24, July 13–15, and July 

20, 1971 (Washington: GPO, 1971).

15 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Reform, report to accompany H.R. 11060, 92nd Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 92-564 (Washington: GPO, 1971).

16 Alexander, Money in Politics, p. 308.

17 “Campaign Spending: Major Reform Bill Neared Passage,” CQ 

Almanac: 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 1971 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1972), p. 890.

18 P.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3-20 (Feb. 7, 1972).

19 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To 

Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, hearing on H.R. 

15511, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., June 20, 1972 (Washington: GPO, 

1972).

20 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending Section 591(G) of Title 18, United States Code, in Order to Exclude 

Corporations and Labor Organizations from the Scope of the Prohibitions Against Government Contractors in Section 611 of Title 18, 

report to accompany H.R. 15276, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

92-1455 (Washington: GPO, 1972).

21 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Federal Election Reform, hearings on H.R. 

7612, S. 372, and related election reform bills, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 

Oct. 2, 10, 16, and 25, and Nov. 14 and 29, 1973 (Washington: 

GPO, 1973). A “Supplement” was issued in 1974 with text omitted 

from the published version. U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Federal Election 

Reform (Supplement), hearings on H.R. 7612, S. 372, and related 

election reform bills, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 2, 10, 16, and 25, 

and Nov. 14 and 29, 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1974).

22 “Senate Twice Votes Campaign Financing Reform,” CQ Almanac: 93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973 (Washington: Congressional 

Quarterly, Inc., 1974), p. 744.

23 Ibid., p. 741.

24 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, report to 

accompany S. 3044, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 93-689 (Washington: GPO, 1974), p. 2.

25 “Congress Clears Campaign Financing Reform,” CQ Almanac: 

93rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1974 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1975), p. 611.

26 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, report to accompany 

H.R. 16090, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1239 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974).

27 “Congress Clears Campaign Financing Reform,” CQ Almanac: 

1974 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1975), p. 628.

28 “Motion to Recommit Off ered by Mr. Dickinson,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, Aug. 8, 1974, pp. 27511–27514.

29 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, conference report to accompany S. 

3044, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1438 (Washington: GPO, 

1974).

30 P.L. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263-1304 (Oct. 15, 1974). 

31 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Hearings and Confi rmation of Nominees for the 

Federal Election Commission, hearings, 94th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 10, 

12, 17, and 19, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1976).

32 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Confi rmation of the Nominations for the Appointment of the Six 

Members of the Federal Election Commission, report to accompany 

H. Res. 314, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-69 (Washington: 

GPO, 1975).

33 “Committee Meetings: Federal Election Commission’s Regulations,” Daily Digest, Congressional Record, vol. 122, Jan. 27, 1976, 

p. D29.

34 Harold H. Bruff and Ernest Gellhorn, “Congressional Control 

of Administrative Regulation: A Study of Legislative Vetoes,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 90, May 1977, p. 1405.

35 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Disapproving a Regulation Proposed by the Federal Election Commission, 

report to accompany H. Res. 780, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

94-552 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

36 “Disapproving a Regulation Proposed by the Federal Election 

Commission,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Oct. 20, 1975, pp. 

33015–33016; and “Disapproving a Regulation Proposed by the 

Federal Election Commission,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Oct. 

22, 1975, pp. 33664–33674.

37 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, report to accompany 

H.R. 12406, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-917 (Washington: 

GPO, 1976).

38 “Court Decision Forces New Campaign Law,” CQ Almanac: 

94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1976), p. 459.

39 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, conference report to accompany S. 

3065, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1057 (Washington: GPO, 

1976).
110 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

40 CQ Almanac “Court Decision Forces New Campaign Law,” 

p. 459.

41 P.L. 94-283, 90 Stat. 475-502 (May 11, 1976).

42 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Public 

Financing of Congressional Elections, hearings, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 

May 18, 19; June 21, 23, 28; July 12, 1977 (Washington: GPO, 

1977).

43 “Election Reforms: Delay and Defeat,” CQ Almanac: 95th Congress, 1st Session, 1977 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 

1977), p. 808.

44 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1978, report to accompany 

H.R. 11315, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-982 (Washington: 

GPO, 1978).

45 Rhodes Cook, “Bill Lowering Spending Levels Reported,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, vol. 36, Mar. 18, 1978, p. 721. 

46 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Public 

Financing of Congressional Elections, hearings on H.R. 1 and related 

legislation, 96th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 15, 20–22, 27, 1979 (Washington: GPO, 1979).

47 “Public Campaign Funds,” CQ Almanac: 96th Congress, 1st Session, 1979 (Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1980), vol. 

35, pp. 553–556.

48 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, report to accompany H.R. 

5010, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 96-422 (Washington: GPO, 1979).

49 P.L. 96-187, 93 Stat. 1339-1369 (Jan. 8, 1980).

50 “Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments,” Congressional Record, vol. 124, Oct. 17, 1979, pp. 28659–28660.

51 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Calendar 

of Business, Ninety-Sixth Congress (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 74.

52 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on Elections, Contribution Limitations and Independent 

Expenditures, hearings, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., June 10 and July 28, 

1982 (Washington: GPO, 1982).

53 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on Elections, Campaign Finance Reform, hearings, 98th Cong., 

1st sess., June 9, 16, 21, and 23,1983 (Washington), July 8, 1983 

(Boston), Aug. 22, 1983 (Sacramento), Aug. 23, 1983 (Seattle), and 

Oct. 12, 1983 (Atlanta) (Washington: GPO, 1984).

54 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Calendar 

of Business, Ninety-Ninth Congress (Washington: GPO, 1987), p. 107.

55 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task Force 

on Elections, Campaign Finance, hearings, 100th Cong., 1st sess., May 

21, June 2, 16, 30, and July 14, 1987 (Washington: GPO, 1987).

56 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Calendar 

of Business, One Hundredth Congress (Washington: GPO, 1989), 

p. 120.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 “Campaign Cost Reduction and Reform Act of 1990,” Congressional Record, vol. 136, Aug. 3, 1990, pp. 22196–22252.

60 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on Campaign Finance Reform, Campaign Finance Reform, 

hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1—Mar. 11, 1991 (St. Paul and 

Madison), vol. 2—Mar. 22, Apr. 18, 30, 1991, vol. 3—May 9, 21, 

1991, vol. 4—May 23, 28, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991).

61 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, House of 

Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act 

of 1991, report to accompany H.R. 3750, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 102-340, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1991).

62 “House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and 

Election Reform Act of 1991,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, Nov. 

25, 1991, pp. 34672–34708.

63 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992, report to 

accompany S. 3, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-479 (Washington: GPO, 1992).

64 “Conference Report on S. 3, Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 138, Apr. 9, 1992, pp. 8999–9023; “Senate Election Ethics 

Act—Conference Report,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Apr. 

30, 1992, 9925-9964; and “Disapproval of S. 3—Congressional 

Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 138, May 12, 1992, pp. 10948–10949.

65 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Presidential Election Campaign Fund (Presidential Checkoff System), hearing, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 1991 

(Washington: GPO, 1991).

66 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

Th at, in Making Payments from the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund, Including the Presidential Matching Payment Account, Amounts 

Estimated to be Transferred to the Fund During the Fiscal Year Before 

the Fiscal Year of the Presidential Election Shall Be Taken into Account, 

report to accompany H.R. 3644, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

102-329, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1991).

67 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, House of 

Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 

1993, report to accompany H.R. 3, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

103-375, Part 1, (Washington: GPO, 1993).

68 “House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, Nov. 22, 

1993, pp. 31747–31793. 

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Campaign 

Finance Reform Legislation, hearings, 104th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 2 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 111

and 16, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).

70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Campaign 

Finance Reform Legislation: Th e Role of Political Parties, hearing, 

104th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 12, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).

71 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Infl uencing 

Elections: Political Activity of Labor Unions, hearing, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., Mar. 21, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996).

72 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Markup of the 

Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996, hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd

sess., July 10, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996).

73 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Campaign 

Finance Reform Act of 1996, report to accompany H.R. 3760, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-677 (Washington: GPO, 1996).

74 U.S. President (Clinton), Offi ce of the Federal Register, Public 

Papers of the President of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1997,

vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 110.

75 “Committee Meetings: Campaign Finance Reform,” Daily 

Digest, Congressional Record, vol. 143, Oct. 30, 1997, p. D598; 

Oct. 31, 1997, D602; Nov. 6, 1997, D626; and Nov. 7, 1997, D632.

76 “Committee Meetings: Campaign Reform,” Daily Digest, 

Congressional Record, vol. 144, Feb. 5, 1998, p. D23; Feb. 26, 1998, 

D55; and Mar. 5, 1998, D78.

77 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Campaign 

Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1998, report to accompany H.R. 

3458, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-457, Part 1 (Washington: 

GPO, 1998).

78 “Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, Mar. 30, 1998, pp. 5143–5156, 5182; 

“Paycheck Protection Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, Mar. 

1998, pp. 5165–5171, 5183–5184; “Illegal Foreign Contributions 

Act of 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, Mar. 30, 1998, pp. 

5156–5165, 5182–5183; and “Campaign Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, Mar. 30, 1998, 

pp.5171–5181, 5184.

79 “Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 144, Aug. 3, 1998, p. 18607, and Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 

19022–19055.

80 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1999, report to accompany 

H.R. 2668, 106th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 106-295 (Washington: 

GPO, 1999), p. 16.

81 Ibid.

82 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Campaign Integrity Act of 1999, report to accompany H.R. 1867, 106th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 106-294 (Washington: GPO, 1999).

83 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Citizen 

Legislature and Political Freedom Act of 1999, report to accompany 

H.R. 1922, 106th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 106-296, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1999).

84 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, adverse report to accompany H.R. 417, 106th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 106-297, Part 1 

(Washington: GPO, 1999).

85 “Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, Sept. 14, 1999, pp. 21489–21553.

86 Karen Foerstel, “House Won’t Be Rushed into Moving an Overhaul Bill, Leader’s Say,” CQ Weekly, vol. 59, Mar. 24, 2001, p. 649.

87 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Campaign Finance Reform, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 2001 

(Washington: GPO, 2003).

88 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Constitutional Perspective on Campaign Finance Reform, hearing, 107th

Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003).

89 “Committee Meetings: Campaign Finance Reform,” Daily 

Digest, Congressional Record, vol. 147, June 21, 2001, p. D284.

90 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing 

on Campaign Finance Reform, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 

28, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003).

91 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Campaign Reform and Citizen Participation Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2360, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 107-132 (Washington: GPO, 2001).

92 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, adverse report to accompany 

H.R. 2356, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 107-131, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2001).

93 “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 148, Feb. 13, 2002, pp. 1291–1419, and Mar. 20, 2002, 

pp. 3555–3623; and P.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81-116 (Mar. 27, 2002).

94 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Elections in a Post-BCRA Environment, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st

sess., Nov. 20, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2004).

95 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Federal Election Commission and 527 Groups, hearing, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004).

96 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 20, 2005 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 2005-H421-13); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 

1316, the 527 Fairness Act of 2005, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., 

June 8, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005).

97 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 527 

Fairness Act of 2005, report to accompany H.R. 1316, 109th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 109-146 (Washington: GPO, 2005).
112 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

98 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 527 

Reform Act of 2005, report to accompany H.R. 513, 109th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 109-181 (Washington: GPO, 2005).

99 “527 Reform Act of 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, Apr. 5, 2006, pp. H1514–H1530; and “Lobbying 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006,” Congressional 

Record, daily edition, vol. 152, May 3, 2006, pp. H2011–H2030, 

H2032–H2057. 

100 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Online 

Freedom of Speech Act, report to accompany H.R. 1606, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-389 (Washington: GPO, 2006).

101 HLOGA is P.L. 110-81; 121 Stat. 739. HLOGA amended the 

Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA); see 2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.

102 “Federal Election Commission Fines Authorization Extension,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, July 15, 2008, 

pp. H6535–H6536

103 P.L. 110-433, which amended 2 U.S.C. § 437g.

104 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to Permit Candidates 

for Election for Federal Offi ce to Designate an Individual Who Will be 

Authorized to Disburse Funds of the Authorized Campaign Committee 

of the Candidate in the Event of the Death of the Candidate, report 

to accompany H.R. 3032, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 110-602 

(Washington: GPO, 2008).

105 “Permitting Designation of Individual to Designate Campaign 

Funds Upon Candidate’s Death,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, July 15, 2008, pp. H6534–H6535.

106 H.R. 3093, Sec. 711, as passed by the House. See “Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, July 26, 2007, 

p. H8633.

107 Th e consolidated appropriations bill was H.R. 2764, which 

became P.L. 110-161.

108 “Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act,” Congressional 

Record, daily edition, vol. 153, July 23, 2007, p. H86234.

109 See U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Elections, Hearing on the Use of “Robocalls” in 

Federal Campaigns, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 6, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2008). Th is topic is tangentially related to campaign 

fi nance, because legislation aimed at restricting automated political 

calls often references, or would amend, FECA. 

110 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). For legal analyses of the case, see CRS 

Report R41045, Th e Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens 

United v. FEC, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report R41096, 

Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and 

Legal Issues, by L. Paige Whitaker et al.

111 Parts of this section are adapted from other CRS products, 

which contain additional detail. See, in particular, CRS Report 

R41542, Th e State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments 

and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett; CRS Report R41264, 

Th e DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L. 

Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder; and CRS Report R42042, 

Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress,

by R. Sam Garrett.

112 DISCLOSE was an acronym for Democracy is Strengthened

by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.

113 On the defi nition of independent expenditures, see 2 U.S.C. 

431 §17.

114 On the defi nition of electioneering communications, see 2 U.S.C. 

434 §(f)(3).

115 On the Committee on House Administration hearing, see 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Defi ning the 

Future of Campaign Finance in an Era of Supreme Court Activism, 

hearing, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 

2010).

116 Th e Committee reported the bill on May 25, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, DISCLOSE 

Act, report to accompany H.R. 5175, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., May 

25, 2010, H.Rept. 111-492 (Washington: GPO, 2010). Also in 

the House, on Mar. 11, the Committee on Financial Services, 

Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government 

Sponsored Enterprises, held a hearing addressing corporate governance and shareholder protection after Citizens United. In addition 

to exploring general themes, various legislative proposals, including Representative Capuano’s Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 

4790), were discussed. At the May 20, 2010, Committee on House 

Administration markup, Rep. Capuano initially off ered the Shareholder Protection Act as an amendment to the DISCLOSE Act. 

He ultimately withdrew the amendment, saying that it would be 

pursued separately.

117 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, DISCLOSE Act, report to accompany H.R. 5175, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., 

May 25, 2010, Rept. 111-492 (Washington: GPO, 2010).

118 “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in 

Elections Act,” House vote 391, Congressional Record, daily edition, 

vol. 156 (June 24, 2010), p. H4828.

119 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed,” Senate vote 220, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (July 27, 2010), p. S6285.

120 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed—Resumed,” Senate 

vote 240, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (Sept. 23, 

2010), p. S7388.

121 On passage, see “Federal Election Integrity Act of 2010,” 

House vote 563, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (Sept. 

29, 2010), p. H7372. On debate, see “Federal Election Integrity Act 

of 2010,” debate in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, 

vol. 156 (Sept. 28, 2010), pp. H7145–7148.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION 113

122 Th is information comes from consultations between R. Sam 

Garrett and J. Duane Pugh, FEC Director of Congressional, 

Legislative and Intergovernmental Aff airs, July 2012. Th e question of how much information the agency should release about 

how it determines civil penalties has been the subject of ongoing 

debate at public commission meetings and among the regulated 

community.

123 For additional discussion, see U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Th ird Semiannual Report on the Activities 

of the Committee on House Administration, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H.Rpt. 112-571, June 29, 2012 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 8.

124 House Roll Call vote no. 466 (2011).

CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 115

VI. CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS

Origins and Development

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides that: “Each 

House shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifi cations of its own Members.” In addition, Article I, section 4 

provides: “Th e Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed 

in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 

may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

Together, “these two sections invest Congress with nearcomplete authority to establish the procedures and render 

fi nal decisions relating to the election of its members.”1

In exercising its authority to judge election returns, Congress “is essentially free from judicial review. Th e Supreme 

Court has declined jurisdiction over congressional election 

contests, fi nding that the authority to resolve contests is constitutionally committed to each of the respective houses and 

therefore is not justiciable.” Instead of assuming complete 

responsibility for resolving election contests, however, Congress has “recognized and indeed relied on state contest (challenge) and recount procedures to clarify and resolve issues 

relating to election contests of their members.” Although the 

“authority of states to enact contest and recount procedures 

governing federal elections seems well grounded in law,” several “states have chosen not to assert jurisdiction.” Ultimately, 

the fi nal authority for “resolving a dispute rests with the house 

of Congress to which the challenge pertains. Th e rules and 

precedents of each house establish the methods under which 

a challenge is considered.”2

Prior to the establishment of the Committee on House 

Administration in 1947, the House Committee on Elections considered contested elections. In 1798, the Fifth Congress (1797–1798) enacted a statute governing the process 

and procedures relating to contested elections. Th is statute 

expired at the end of the First Session of the Sixth Congress 

(1799–1800).3 In 1851, Congress enacted a second contested 

election statute, which, with the exception of minor amendments made in 1860, 1873, 1875, 1879, and 1887,4

 remained 

substantially unchanged until enactment of the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 (FCEA)5

 “An attempt to make 

major improvements in contested election procedures failed 

in the 67th Congress (1921–1922) when the bill passed the 

House in 1921, but died in the Senate.”6

Role of the Committee 

Between 1947 and 2006, the Committee on House Administration considered more than 60 contested election cases. 

In addition, the Committee was instrumental in the passage 

of FCEA, which was introduced by Representative Watkins 

M. Abbitt of Virginia, a member of the Committee.

Enactment of Federal Contested Election Act 

(FCEA). In the 90th Congress (1967–1968), a year prior to the 

passage of FCEA, a virtually identical bill, H.R. 18104, was 

the subject of a July 1968 hearing by the Committee’s Subcommittee on Elections. Following the hearing, the Committee made certain perfecting amendments in the proposal, 

and a new bill (H.R. 18797) incorporating those changes was 

introduced and favorably reported by the full Committee. No 

further action was taken on H.R. 18797.7

Th e bill subsequently introduced in the fi rst session of 

the 91st Congress (1969–1970) by Representative Watkins 

Abbitt (H.R. 14195) contained two substantial changes 

designed to bring the contested election “procedure into 

closer conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

upon which the contested election procedures prescribed” 

were based. In favorably reporting H.R. 14195, on October 

14, the Committee stressed it was “essential . . . that such 

contests be determined by the House under modern procedures which would provide effi cient, expeditious processing of 
116 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the cases and a full opportunity for both parties to be heard. 

Historical experience with the existing law has demonstrated 

its inadequacies.” Th e Committee in drafting the bill sought 

to “completely overhaul and modernize election contest procedures in the House.”8

During fl oor consideration of H.R. 14195, Representative Abbitt observed that the 1851 law was “antiquated and 

cumbersome” and those procedures were “unsuitable for the 

changed conditions of our time.” Representative Abbitt, in 

urging passage of FCEA, argued, “H.R. 14195 would provide 

modern procedures for a contested election case to be heard in 

the House, permitting a more effi cient processing of the case 

than does existing law.” Th e bill did not, he explained, “set 

out any substantive grounds for upsetting an election, such as 

fraud or other irregularities. It is strictly limited to prescribing a procedural framework for the prosecution, defense, and 

disposition of contested-election cases patterned upon the 

federal rules of civil procedure used for more than 20 years 

in our U.S. District courts.”9

 Following brief debate, FCEA, 

which is only applicable to House contests, was approved by 

the House on October 20, and the Senate a month later. It 

was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 

5, 1969.10

House Options in Seating Members-Elect. Under 

FCEA, the right to a seat in the House may be challenged 

by fi ling a protest, petition, or memorial with the House, or 

by motion of a Member. Only a candidate for election to the 

House in the last preceding election and claiming a right to 

such offi ce may contest a House seat.11 Th e contestant must be 

a candidate whose name was on the offi cial ballot or who was 

a bona fi de write-in candidate.12 FCEA proscribes procedures 

for instituting a challenge and presenting testimony, but does 

not establish criteria to govern decisions.

The House has several options in seating Memberselect in the context of a contested election. It may: (1) seat 

a Member-elect who has been certifi ed as the winner by the 

state executive authority; (2) seat a certifi ed Member-elect 

conditionally pending the outcome of an investigation of 

the election by the Committee on House Administration; or 

(3) seat no candidate, even though there is a state-certifi ed 

winner, until the Committee investigates the election and 

reports the results to the House. If a candidate is certifi ed 

as elected by the executive authority of the state, this certifi -

cate is forwarded to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the candidate’s name is entered on the roll of the 

Representatives-elect.13

When the House is convened in January of a new Congress, Members-elect are administered the oath, and a single 

objection may be made to challenge any one of them. House 

precedent indicates that such Member would be asked by the 

Chair to stand aside while other Members-elect are sworn 

in.14 In accordance with House precedent, a House resolution 

may then follow, stating that: (1) there is a question of the 

right of a particular Member-elect to be seated in the Congress from a certain district; (2) the question of who should 

be seated be referred to the Committee on House Administration; (3) the Committee shall have the power to subpoena 

persons and documents and examine witnesses under oath; 

and (4) neither candidate is to be seated or sworn in until the 

Committee makes its report and determines which candidate 

has the right to the seat. Generally, the House adopts the 

certifi cation of election issued by the appropriate state election offi cial, as it carries with it a presumption in favor of the 

certifi ed candidate.15

If the House decides to propose a resolution not to seat 

a Member-elect, and refers an election to the Committee 

on House Administration to investigate, House precedent 

indicates that the House resolution is voted upon. Assuming the House resolution is agreed to by a majority vote, its 

adoption automatically nullifi es any certifi cate of election 

that was previously issued by the executive authority of the 

state. Th e adoption of the House resolution then places the 

responsibility on the Committee to determine the results of 

the contested election and report it back to the full House.16

In the course of its investigation, the Committee has a number of alternative courses of action available, including a recommendation: (1) of dismissal upon a Motion to Dismiss by 

the contestee; (2) on the seating of a certain candidate on the 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 117

grounds that he or she received a majority of the valid votes 

cast; (3) to seek a recount and to investigate any fraud or 

irregularities in the voting process in various precincts; (4) to 

order the seating of a certain candidate after the Committee 

has conducted a recount and investigation; and (5) that the 

returns from the election be rejected, that the seat be declared 

vacant, and that a new election be held.17

Summary of Contested Election Cases Considered by the Committee on House Administration 

Since 1947, the Committee on House Administration has 

considered the following contested election cases. Th e cases 

are summarized below, organized by the Congress during 

which they were considered. Th e term “contestant” refers to 

an individual who challenged the election of a Member of the 

House, and the term “contestee” refers to a Member of the 

House whose election was challenged.18

80th Congress (1947–1948)

Helen D. Mankin v. James C. Davis, 5th District of Georgia. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed by record. 

Th e report merely states that, “the aforementioned contest be 

dismissed as lacking in merit.” 

Disposition. On April 27, 1948, the House adopted 

H.Res. 552 (80th Congress) dismissing the contest against 

contestee, Davis, and declaring that he was entitled to the seat.19

Wyman C. Lowe v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia. The nature of the contest was not disclosed by 

record. Th e report merely states that “the aforementioned 

contest be dismissed as lacking in merit.”

Disposition. On April 27, 1948, the House adopted 

H.Res. 553 (80th Congress) dismissing the contest against contestee, Davis, and declaring that he was entitled to the seat.20

Lawrence Michael v. Howard W. Smith, 8th District 

of Virginia. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed by 

record. Th e report stated that the period for taking testimony had expired and no evidence had been received by 

the Committee on House Administration. It recommended 

that the contest be dismissed for “failure to comply with 

the rules.”

Disposition. Th e contestee, Smith, fi led a motion to 

dismiss. On July 26, 1947, the House adopted H.Res. 345 

(80th Congress) dismissing the contest against the contestee 

and declaring Smith to be entitled to the seat.21

Frederick M. Roberts v. Helen Gahagan Douglas, 

14th District of California. Th e nature of the contest was 

not disclosed by record.

 Disposition. Th e contestee, Douglas, fi led a motion 

to dismiss the contest, on July 24, 1947. Two days later, the 

House adopted H.Res. 345 (80th Congress) dismissing the 

contest and declaring the contestee entitled to the seat.22

Harold C. Woodward v. Th omas J. O’Brien, 6th District of Illinois. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed 

by record.

Disposition. On July 26, 1947, the House adopted 

H.Res. 345 (80th Congress) dismissing the contest of Woodward and declaring that O’Brien was entitled to the seat.23

David J. Wilson v. Walter K. Granger, 1st District 

of Utah. It was alleged that the laws of Utah, relating to the 

registration of voters, had been violated in numerous ways, 

including illegal appointment of registration offi cers, the 

manner of registration, and the failure to enter all required 

information upon the offi cial register.

Disposition.Th e Committee on House Administration 

found that there had been numerous and widespread irregularities and errors, revealing lack of knowledge and failure to 

enforce the statutes relating to registration, but that the results 

of the election had not been aff ected by such practices. Th e 

House adopted H.Res. 692 (80th Congress) on June 19, 1948, 

to dismiss the contest and seat Granger.24

81st Congress (1949–1950) 

James F. Th ierry v. Michael A. Feighan, 20th District of 

Ohio. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed by record.

Disposition. After more than 90 days had elapsed since 

the fi ling of the notice of contest, with no testimony having 

been received in support of the allegations, the Committee 

on House Administration recommended adoption of H.Res. 

324 (81st Congress) declaring Feighan to be entitled to his 

seat. Th e House adopted the resolution on August 11, 1949.25
118 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

George D. Stevens v. William W. Blackney, 6th District of Michigan. Contestant sought a recount under supervision of the Committee, on the ground that there had been 

irregularities in the counting of ballots.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

reported that the evidence had not established the allegations 

in the notice of contest. It recommended, and the House 

adopted, on May 23, 1950. H.Res. 503 (81st Congress), a 

declaration that Blackney had been duly elected.26

Hadwen C. Fuller v. John C. Davies, 35th District 

of New York. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed 

by record.

Disposition. After more than 90 days had elapsed since 

the fi ling of the notice of contest, with no testimony having 

been received in support of the allegations, the Committee on 

House Administration recommended adoption of H.Res. 324 

(81st Congress) declaring Davies to be entitled to his seat. Th e 

House adopted the resolution on August 11, 1949.27

Vincent L. Browner v. Paul Cunningham, 5th District of Iowa. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed 

by record.

Disposition. After more than 90 days had elapsed since 

the fi ling of the notice of contest, with no testimony having 

been received in support of the allegations, the Committee on House Administration recommended adoption of 

H.Res. 324 (81st Congress) declaring Cunningham to be 

entitled to his seat. Th e House adopted the resolution on 

August 11, 1949.28

82nd Congress (1951–1952)

W. Kingsland Macy v. Earnest Greenwood, 1st District of 

New York. Macy charged that electors had been registered 

who were not qualifi ed to vote because they failed to meet 

the residence requirements of the state constitution. He also 

charged that some voters had been registered after the expiration of time allowed by law, and alleged additional miscellaneous irregularities in registration and voting.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

reported that the evidence was insuffi cient to support the 

contestant’s charges, and recommended adoption of H.Res. 

580 (82nd Congress) declaring Greenwood elected. Th e house 

adopted the resolution on March 19, 1952.29

Raymond W. Karst v. Th omas B. Curtis, 12th District 

of Missouri. Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed by 

record.

Disposition. No testimony was taken in support of the 

contest and, on June 4, 1951, Karst requested that it be dismissed. On August 21, 1951, the House passed H.Res. 399 

(82nd Congress) dismissing the contest.30

Walter B. Huber v. William H. Ayres, 14th District of 

Ohio. Huber contested the election of Ayres on the ground 

that the county boards of election had failed to rotate the 

names of the candidates on the ballots in the manner required 

by the Ohio Constitution.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

found that the names had not been rotated as required, but 

that Huber had an adequate remedy under state law prior to 

election, and that the results of the election should not be 

overturned due to such a pre-election irregularity. Th e House 

adopted H.Res. 400 (82nd Congress) declaring Ayres legally 

elected on August 21, 1951.31

Wyman C. Lowe v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia. Lowe had been a candidate in the Democratic 

primary, but his name did not appear on the ballot in the 

general election. Th e nature of his charges were not set forth 

in the report of the Committee on House Administration.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

recommended that the contest be dismissed. It reported that 

nothing in the record indicated that the contestee was guilty 

of any acts in the primary that would disqualify him for the 

offi ce of Representative in Congress, and that contestant had 

not complied with the statutory requirements for conducting 

a contest, specifi cally the taking of testimony pursuant to 2 

U.S.C. Section 203. Th e House adopted H.Res. 398 (82nd

Congress) dismissing the contest on August 21, 1951.32

Maurice S. Osser v. Hardie Scott, 3rd District of 

Pennsylvania. Osser charged fraud and irregularities in 

allowing numerous persons to register or remain registered 

despite the fact that they were disqualified by reason of 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 119

absence or removal from the congressional district, by permitting unregistered persons to vote on election day, and 

other irregularities.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

declared that the contestant had not presented satisfactory 

evidence clearly showing that he had received a majority of 

the votes legally cast or that the election was so tainted with 

fraud, or with the misconduct of election offi cers, that the 

true result cannot be determined. It declared that the Committee was of the opinion that Scott had been duly elected. 

Th e House adopted H.Res. 579 (82nd Congress) declaring 

Scott elected on March 19, 1952.33

83rd Congress (1953–1954) 

No election contests.

84th Congress (1955–1956)

No election contests.

85th Congress (1957–1958)

James I. Dolliver v. Merlin Coad, 6th District of Iowa.

Th e nature of the contest was not disclosed by record. On 

January 15, 1957, Coad addressed a letter to the Clerk of 

the House of Representatives stating that he had received 

information that Dolliver intended to contest his election, 

but that the notice of contest required by the statute had not 

been served upon him. Coad requested a resolution stating 

whether there was any notice of contest he was required by 

law to answer.

Disposition. After a hearing, the Committee on House 

Administration reported that the purported notice of contest 

served by Dolliver was not a suffi cient notice under the statute 

because it did not bear the written signature of Dolliver or 

that of his counsel. On April 11, 1957, the House adopted 

H.Res. 230 (85th Congress) declaring that the unsigned paper 

was not the notice required by statute.34

Steven V. Carter v. Karl M. LeCompte, 4th District 

of Iowa. Carter alleged that numerous absentee ballots 

had been illegally cast and illegally counted, that ballots on 

certain voting machines had been improperly printed, and 

other irregularities.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

reported that there were apparent violations of the duties 

imposed by law upon the election offi cials, but that the contestant had not shown that he had exhausted his state remedies either to prevent such infractions or to punish those 

responsible. It also found that fraud had not been proved, 

nor had it been proved that the result of the election would 

have been diff erent if the alleged and proven irregularities 

had not occurred. It expressed the opinion that LeCompte 

had been elected. The House adopted H.Res. 353 (85th

Congress) declaring LeCompte elected on June 17, 1958.35

James C. Oliver v. Robert Hale, 1st District of Maine. 

Oliver challenged many of the absentee ballots cast in the district and a few of the regular ballots. He alleged that certain 

regular ballots had been improperly marked or counted. Th e 

absentee ballots were challenged on the ground of various 

violations of law in the handling of the ballots and the failure 

of the voter to comply with the law in preparing his absentee 

voting material.

Disposition. A subcommittee of the Committee on 

House Administration examined the challenged ballots. It 

found that the violations by election offi cials were of directory, rather than mandatory, provisions of state law and, consequently, did not invalidate the ballots aff ected. After making a deduction for ballots of voters who had failed to comply 

with the statute, it found that Hale had been elected by a 

plurality of the votes cast. It recommended and the House 

adopted, on August 12, 1958, H.Res. 676 (85th Congress) 

declaring Hale to have been duly elected.36

86th Congress (1959–1960)

Dale Alford, 5th District of Arkansas. Th e defeated candidate did not institute a contest, but a Member of the House 

objected to the seating of Alford. Th e House then directed the 

Committee on House Administration to investigate his right 

to his seat. Various irregularities and violations of law relating 

to the use of unsigned circulars, campaign expenditures, and 

write-in ballots were charged.

Disposition. After recounting the ballots and investigating all complaints, the Committee found that Alford 
120 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

had been duly elected. Th e House adopted H.Res. 380 (86th 

Congress) declaring Alford to have been duly elected on September 8, 1959.37

Elmo J. Mahoney v. Wint Smith, 6th District of Kansas. Th e contestant, Mahoney, charged miscellaneous irregularities in the conduct of the election, the counting of ballots, 

and the casting of absentee ballots by persons who were not 

entitled to cast such ballots.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

concluded that the evidence did not support the charges made 

and recommended a resolution declaring Smith to have been 

duly elected. A resolution to this eff ect, H.Res. 482 (86th

Congress) was adopted on March 24, 1960.38

Carlton H. Myers v. William L. Springer, 22nd District of Illinois. Myers charged violations of the Corrupt 

Practices Act and the Hatch Political Activities Act. He 

alleged that the editor of a newspaper had been appointed 

acting postmaster of a post offi ce in the district and that this 

newspaper failed to print his speeches. He also alleged that he 

had been approached and asked how much money he would 

take to leave the United States until after the election.

Disposition. A subcommittee of the Committee on 

House Administration held a hearing on May 18, 1959, and, 

on that date, denied the petition to inaugurate a contest.39

Roy A. Taylor, 12th District of North Carolina. Th e 

nature of the contest was not disclosed by record. On August 

18, 1960, Taylor addressed a letter to the Clerk of the House 

stating that he had received a letter from Tollman, who was 

not a candidate in the special election, stating that he might 

contest the election, but that no valid notice of contest had 

been served within the time prescribed by statute. Taylor 

requested a resolution stating whether there was any notice 

of contest he was required by law to answer.

Disposition. A subcommittee of the Committee on 

House Administration held a hearing on the matter on 

August 25, 1960, and on August 30, 1960, found that no 

valid notice of contest had been given.40

87th Congress (1961–1962)

Morgan M. Molder, 11th District of Missouri. Th e nature 

of the contest was not disclosed by record.

Disposition. After having been asked to stand aside, 

Molder took the oath subsequent to the adoption of H.Res. 

3 (87th Congress) permitting him to do so.41

Victor Wickersham, 6th District of Oklahoma. Th e 

nature of the contest was not disclosed by record.

Disposition. After having been asked to stand aside, 

Wickersham took the oath subsequent to the adoption of 

H.Res. 3 (87th Congress) permitting him to do so.42

J. Edward Roush v. George O. Chambers, 5th District 

of Indiana. Contestee received a plurality of three votes from 

the tallies as fi led by the county clerks with the Secretary of 

State. Th e Secretary of State, on the basis of corrected returns 

to the November 15, 1960, election, certifi ed that contestee 

Chambers had a plurality of 12 votes over contestant Roush. 

As the laws of Indiana did not provide for recounts for legislative offi ce, the case required a recount by the Committee 

on House Administration. Th e question revolved around the 

rules to be applied by the Committee in determining which 

ballots were correctly marked and were to be counted, and 

which were not. Th e Committee adopted a set of rules for 

determining the validity or invalidity of questionable ballots. 

At the conclusion of the recount, the Committee determined 

that contestant Roush was the winner by 99 votes.

Disposition. On January 23, 1961, Representative Clifford Davis of Tennessee objected to the administration of the 

oath to Chambers. Representative Davis off ered a resolution, 

H.Res. 1 (87th Congress) that the question of the election be 

referred to the Committee on House Administration, and 

that “until such committee shall report upon and the House 

decide the question of the right of either J. Edward Roush 

or George O. Chambers to a seat in the 87th Congress, neither shall be sworn.” Th e resolution was adopted by a vote 

of 205-95.

A dissent, in part, to the Committee report (House 

Report 87-513, 87th Congress) took issue with the failure to 

follow precedent and to swear in a Member-elect for whom 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 121

credentials had been received by the Clerk of the House with 

a later investigation by a House Committee.

Further Disposition. After considerable debate, on June 

14, 1961, the House adopted H.Res. 339 (87th Congress) 

declaring that contestant Roush was duly elected. Th e debate 

covered the failure to swear in Chambers as entitled to a 

prima facie right to the seat, as well as the method of conducting the recount and the making of an unoffi cial tally of the 

votes by the House.43

88th Congress (1963–1964)

Robert J. Odegard v. Alec G. Olson, 6th District of Minnesota. Contestant alleged failures of certain election offi cials to 

properly fulfi ll their functions in checking voter registrations, 

the improper counting of votes, and the denial of access to 

polling places to Republican poll watchers. Contestant apparently failed to fi le evidence with the Committee on House 

Administration, and contestee Olson asked that the contest 

be dismissed. Th e Committee held a hearing on February 

26, 1963.

Disposition. The Committee dismissed the case on 

November 20, 1963.44

89th Congress (1965–1966)

James A. Frankenberry v. Richard L. Ottinger, 25th District of New York. Th is case involved a question of the standing to proceed under the House contested election statute (2 

U.S.C. §§ 201-226) by a person who had not been a candidate 

for the House seat at the general election.

Contestant, head of a campaign committee for the 

defeated incumbent, Representative Robert L. Barry of New 

York, fi led a notice of contest under the statute on December 

19, 1964. Th e contestant alleged that approximately $187,000 

had been spent on the campaign by the contestee, of which 

some $167,000 had been contributed by the contestee’s 

mother and sister. Contestant alleged that this activity violated 18 U.S.C., Section 608(a), which limits a contribution 

by an individual during a calendar year to a candidate for 

election to federal offi ce to $5,000. Contestant also alleged 

that the laws of New York state had been violated in that some 

34 campaign committees had been created, only one of which 

had been registered in accordance with New York requirements. Contestant alleged that the purpose of the creation of 

the committees was so that the contributions from contestee’s 

mother and sister could be distributed so as to enable them 

superfi cially to be within individual contribution limitations 

and gift tax limitations. Furthermore, contestant alleged that 

the same person was listed as assistant treasurer of almost all 

of the campaign committees.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

issued no report on the contest, but on January 19, 1965, 

reported out H.Res. 126 (89th Congress). Th e resolution provided that the contest be dismissed on the ground that the 

contestant had not been a candidate from the district in the 

election, and that the House did not regard the contestant as 

a person competent to bring a contest for a seat in the House. 

Under the statute, if he were successful, he would not be able 

to establish his right to a seat in the House. After debate in the 

House as to whether the statutory procedure for contesting 

elections to the House applied only to candidates (as adoption of the resolution would have determined), or whether 

non-candidates had to fi le petitions asking for consideration 

of a contest rather than utilize the statutory notice of contest 

route, the resolution dismissing the contest was adopted, 

245 to 102.

It was argued that precedent supported limiting the use 

of statutory procedure to candidates alone, and that to permit 

non-candidates to use it would enable those without a serious 

interest in the actual determination of the election to carry 

on numerous, spurious contests.45

Augusta Wheadon v. Th omas G. Abernethy, 1st District of Mississippi; Fannie Lou Hamer v. Jamie L. Whitten, 2nd District of Mississippi; Mildred Cosey, Evelyn 

Nelson, and Allen Johnson v. John Bell Williams, 3rd District of Mississippi; Annie Devine v. Prentiss Walker, 4th

District of Mississippi; Victoria Jackson Gray v. William 

Meyers Colmer, 5th District of Mississippi. All of the above 

listed contests were considered simultaneously. Th e questions 

involved failure of the contestants to avail themselves of the 
122 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

legal steps to challenge: (1) alleged discrimination among 

voters prior to the election; (2) the issuance of the certifi cates 

of election to the contestees after the elections were held; 

(3) the denial of seats to Members-elect because of alleged 

discriminatory practices involving disenfranchised groups of 

voters; and (4) the standing of contestants to proceed under 

the contested elections statute (2 U.S.C. §§ 201-226).

Th e contestees had been elected at the November 1964 

general election. Th e contestants had been selected at an unoffi cial “election” held by persons in Mississippi from October 

30 through November 2, 1964, during which time it was 

alleged, “all citizens qualifi ed were permitted to vote.” Th e 

latter “election” was held without any authority of law in the 

state. Th e contestants were all citizens, none of whom had 

been candidates in the November elections. Th ey alleged 

that disenfranchisement of African Americans in Mississippi 

violated the Constitution and laws of the United States and 

that the House had the authority to consider the contests and 

unseat the contestees; that the House had a duty to guarantee that the election of its Members be in accordance with 

the requirements of the Constitution; and that where large 

numbers of African Americans had been excluded from the 

electoral process, where intimidation and violence had been 

utilized to further such exclusion, and where the free will 

of the voters had been prevented from being expressed, the 

House should unseat the contestees, vacate the elections, and 

order new elections. 

On September 13 and 14, 1965, hearings were held by 

the Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Elections. Th e Committee issued its report on September 15, 

1965. Th e report noted that the contestees had been sworn in 

by vote of the House on January 4, 1965, after they had been 

asked to step aside. Th is established the prima facie right of 

each contestee to his seat. Th e report also noted that the contestants had not availed themselves of legal steps to challenge, 

in the courts, the alleged exclusion of African Americans from 

the ballot nor the issuance of the certifi cates of election to the 

contestees. Th e report further noted that the contestants had 

not been candidates at the election and thus, under House 

precedents, had no standing to invoke the House contested 

election statute. Th e report also stated that there had been an 

election in Mississippi in November 1964 for Members of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, under statutes which had not 

been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that 

at the same election, presidential electors and a U.S. Senator 

had been elected without question.

It further observed, however, that a case challenging 

the Mississippi registration and voter laws was progressing 

through the U.S. courts, and that the question of the constitutionality of the statutes was a proper one for the courts to 

determine. Th e report found that the House was the judge 

of the elections of its Members, and that it was doubtful that 

any disenfranchisement, even if proven, would have actually aff ected the outcome of the November 1964 Mississippi 

congressional elections in any district. Th e report concluded 

that the House, in following its rules and procedures, should 

dismiss the cases because the contestants did not qualify to 

utilize the House contested elections statute, and because the 

contestees had been elected under laws that had not been set 

aside at the time of the election.

Th e report did state, however, that in arriving at such 

conclusions the Committee did not condone disenfranchisement of voters in the 1964 or previous elections, nor was 

a precedent being established to the eff ect that the House 

would not take action, in the future, to vacate seats of sitting 

members. It noted that the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 

had been enacted in the interim and that if evidence of its violation were presented to the House in the future, appropriate 

action would be taken. Th e report recommended dismissing 

the cases. A minority view recommended consideration of the 

cases on their merits rather than on the grounds of status of 

the contestants because under the laws in the state in 1964, 

the claimants could not have become candidates to avail 

themselves of the contested elections act.

Disposition. Th e House considered H.Res. 585 (89th Congress), dismissing the contests and declaring the contestees to be 

entitled to their seats, on September 17, 1965. An amendment 

was adopted striking out the language entitling the contestees 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 123

to their seats, as language inappropriate in a procedural matter. 

Th e resolution was adopted by a vote of 228 to 143.46

Stephen M. Peterson v. H.R. Gross, 3rd District of 

Iowa. Th is case involved alleged violations of state elections 

law. Contestee was certifi ed to have received 83,455 votes, 

and contestant, 83,036 votes at the November 1964 election. 

Contestant fi led a notice of contest on December 31, 1964, 

alleging violations of the laws of Iowa, including burning of 

some ballots the day after the election, the casting of more 

ballots than there were names listed on the polls, the recording of absentee ballots in a back room by one person, and 

disappearance of a tally sheet. Contestant requested a recount.

Th e Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on 

House Administration held hearings on the case on September 28, 1965. It issued its report on October 8, 1965. Th e 

Committee found that the proof presented did not sustain the 

charges brought and recommended dismissal of the contest.

Specifi cally, the Committee found that although there 

may have been human errors committed at the polls on election day, there was no evidence of fraud or willful misconduct. It found that the burned ballots were unused ballots 

and the practice of burning such had been a uniform one 

for numerous years. Th e allegation of more ballots cast than 

names listed on the polls was discharged by the conclusion 

that some inadvertent errors had been made, but the errors 

were insuffi cient to change the result even if all the excess 

ballots were added to the total of the contestant. Th e charge 

respecting the counting of absentee ballots was found to 

apply to one polling place, and the circumstances were such 

as to make it inadequate as a charge. Th e disappearing tally 

sheet was located and involved technical operation of a voting machine, not the counting of the results. It was further 

disclosed by the contestant that the request for a recount was 

in the nature of a “fi shing expedition,” and that he knew of 

no fraud by which to substantiate it.

 Th e Committee acknowledged that Iowa had no recount 

statute applicable to a U.S. House election, but found that 

the matter had no eff ect on the jurisdiction of the Committee, that the Committee would proceed to a recount if some 

substantial allegations of irregularity or fraud were alleged, 

and the likelihood existed that the result of the election would 

be diff erent were it not for such irregularity or fraud. Under 

the circumstances of the case, it declared, the evidence did 

not justify a recount because the contestant had not clearly 

presented proof suffi cient to overcome the presumption that 

the returns of the returning offi cers were correct.

Disposition. H.Res. 602 (89th Congress), dismissing the 

contest, was reported by the Committee on House Administration, on October 8, 1965. Th e resolution was considered in 

the House on October 11, 1965, and adopted.47

90th Congress (1967–1968) 

James A. Mackay v. Benjamin B. Blackburn, 4th District of 

Georgia. Th e issue involved the counting of so-called “overvotes” on punch card voting machines during the November 

1966 election. Contestant alleged that the computers that 

tallied the votes erroneously failed to count about 7,000 votes, 

and that the procedures for duplicating defective ballots were 

improper. Election offi cials, acting in accordance with what 

they construed to be Georgia law, had programmed the computing machines that counted the ballots to reject those cards 

where a voter had punched a straight party ticket and had 

then also punched out the scored block for the congressional 

candidate of the opposing party. While the contested election 

case was under consideration, a lawsuit was instituted in the 

Georgia courts concerning the interpretation of the Georgia 

statutes relating to the canvassing of punch card votes. Th e 

litigation was terminated on March 30, 1967, by the Georgia 

Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari to the Georgia 

Court of Appeals which, on January 25, 1967, had held in 

favor of the interpretation by the election offi cials (Blackburn v. 

Hall, et al., Georgia Court of Appeals, case No. 42505, decided 

January 25, 1967, rehearing denied February 17, 1967, certiorari 

denied, Supreme Court of Georgia, March 30, 1967). In eff ect, 

the judicial decision sustained the election of the contestee. 

On April 13, 1967, the contestant notifi ed the House of the 

withdrawal of his notice of contest.

Th e Committee on House Administration issued its 

report on June 14, 1967, in conjunction with H.Res. 542 
124 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

(90th Congress), stating that the contestee was the duly elected 

Representative from the 4th congressional district of Georgia 

and was entitled to his seat. 

Th e resolution was considered and adopted by the House 

on July 11, 1967. During the debate, the fact that diffi culties 

had occurred in the counting and handling of punch card 

ballots, and in voter use of “automatic” voting machines, was 

discussed. Th ese diffi culties, however, were deemed not to be 

crucial to the outcome of the election.

Disposition. On January 10, 1967, at the swearing in of 

Members-elect to the 90th Congress, the contestee had been 

asked to stand aside. Th e House then proceeded to adopt a 

resolution, H.Res. 2 (90th Congress), authorizing the oath of 

offi ce to be administered to the contestee and providing that 

the question of the fi nal right of the contest to the seat be 

referred to the Committee on House Administration. Th e 

resolution adopted on July 11, 1967 merely declared that the 

contestee had been duly elected and was entitled to his seat.48

Wyman C. Lowe v. Fletcher Th ompson, 5th District 

of Georgia. Th is case involved the question of contestant’s 

standing to utilize the procedures of the House contested 

elections statute, codifi ed at 2 U.S.C. Sections 201-226, and 

the right of a primary loser in a party diff erent from that of 

the contestee, to challenge the contestee. Contestant had 

fi led notice under the contested elections statute and had 

subsequently fi led a petition with the House requesting that 

contestee’s seat be declared vacant on the grounds that the 

procedures for nomination of the candidate of contestant’s 

party who ran in the general election in November against 

the contestee and was defeated, were contrary to the Georgia 

election statutes. Th e winner of the primary of contestant’s 

party, in which the contestant had been a candidate, withdrew after the primary election and a successor nominee was 

substituted for the primary winner by the local county party 

executive committee. Contestant alleged that the Georgia 

statutes and the rules of the Democratic Party of Georgia 

authorized a county executive committee to make a substitute nomination only where the vacancy occurred after a 

nomination had been made by the state Democratic Party 

Convention. He alleged that the substitute nomination in 

this case had been made prior to the state convention and 

that in such circumstances there should have been a special 

election to nominate a Democratic candidate for the congressional seat.

The Committee on House Administration issued its 

report on June 14, 1967. Th e report declared that based on 

precedent, due to the fact that the contestant had been an 

unsuccessful candidate in the Democratic primary and did 

not claim any right to the seat, he had no standing to proceed 

under the contested elections statute.

Acting pursuant to the authority granted to it by House 

Rule XI, Section 9(k) to consider questions surrounding the 

election of Members of Congress (House Rules Manual, 

90th Cong.; H.R. Doc. No. 529, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess.), the 

Committee took into consideration the petition fi led with 

the House by the “contestant” on May 8, 1967. Precedents 

have authorized the Committee to consider petitions by 

non-candidates, (see Cannon’s Precedents of the House of 

Representatives, Vol. VI, §78). Th e Committee noted that 

the contestant made no charges of fraud or irregularities by 

the contestee in connection with the Republic primary or 

the general election and the contestee received the highest 

vote at the general election. It then declared that, assuming for the sake of argument that the substitute nomination 

of the Democratic candidate for Congress was contrary to 

Georgia law, it did not follow that the House would unseat 

the Republican contestee. Th e Committee stated that it was 

unaware of any precedent for depriving a Member of his seat 

solely on the basis of the irregularity of the nomination of 

his opponent in the general election. It pointed out that this 

was not a case where fraud or irregularity in the returned 

Member’s nomination was charged. Th e Committee then 

noted what it deemed the “potential danger” in declaring an 

election void, due to a fi nding of an unlawful nomination 

of losing candidate. According to the Committee, doing so 

would open the door for the party of a losing candidate in 

a general election to impeach the election of the winning 

candidate by claiming that the election was invalid because 

the losing candidate had not been nominated in accordance 

with election laws and party rules. 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 125

Th e Committee also noted that a suit brought in the 

Georgia courts by the “contestant” seeking a special primary 

had been dismissed. Th e “contestant” had been a write-in 

candidate in the general election, but his candidacy had been 

of only a few days’ duration and he had publicly announced 

his withdrawal from the race several days prior to the general 

election. Th e Committee declared that the “contestant” had 

not been a candidate on election day. Th e Committee recommended that the case be dismissed.

Disposition. On July 11, 1967, the House adopted 

H.Res. 541 (90th Congress) dismissing the contest and denying the petition of Lowe.49

91st Congress (1969–1970)

Wyman C. Lowe v. Fletcher Th ompson, 5th District of 

Georgia. Th e case involved allegations of malconduct, irregularity and fraud by poll offi cers in some 40 precincts in the 

Democratic primary in which the “contestant” had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, losing to Charles Weltner. 

Th ompson, the winner of the general election, was the candidate of the Republican party. Th e major issue presented 

was whether a losing candidate in a primary had standing to 

contest the election of a Member who was the candidate of 

another party on the grounds that his opponent in the general 

election was improperly chosen. Th e Committee on House 

Administration recommended dismissal, noting that none 

of the irregularities alleged involved Th ompson, nor did they 

directly involve his opponent. Additionally, the Committee 

found that House precedent would deny Lowe standing to 

contest under the statute because the “contestant” was not a 

candidate in the general election

Disposition. On April 23, 1969, the House adopted 

H.Res. 364 (91st Congress) dismissing the election contest.50

92nd Congress (1971–1972)

David A. Tunno v. Victor V. Veysey, 38th District of California. Contestant alleged that the affi davits of registration 

of some 11,137 voters in Riverside County, California, had 

been wrongfully and illegally canceled, depriving approximately 10,616 qualifi ed voters of the right to vote. A motion 

to dismiss was fi led by the contestant, based on the defense 

that the notice failed to state grounds suffi cient to change the 

result of the election. (Federal Contested Election Act, Pub. 

L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284, §4(b)(3) provides for a motion to 

dismiss on this ground.) On May 11, 1971, the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration 

held hearings on the motion. Th e Committee recommended 

dismissal of the contest, noting that the contestant had not 

made a substantial off er to prove that those whose names 

were stricken were qualifi ed voters of the district; that those 

stricken off ered to vote and were not permitted to do so; that 

of those who might have been improperly denied the vote of 

suffi cient number would have voted for contestant to change 

the results of the election.

Disposition. On November 9, 1971, the House adopted 

H.Res. 507 (92nd Congress) dismissing the election contest.51

William S. Conover II, 27th District of Pennsylvania. 

No notice was fi led, but suit was brought protesting the special election called to fi ll a vacancy, alleging large numbers of 

voters did not vote in the election because of inconsistencies in 

the voting procedures. A preliminary injunction was obtained 

in the state court restraining the Governor of Pennsylvania 

from issuing a certificate of election. The Committee on 

House Administration recommended administering the 

oath to the apparent winner, based on certifi ed returns, referring the question of fi nal right to the Committee (H.Res. 

936, 92nd Congress). At a hearing held on the resolution the 

plaintiff in the suit acknowledged that he was not claiming 

the seat or alleging fraud. 

Disposition. Th e House adopted H.Res. 986 and the 

oath was provisionally administered. It appears that no further action was taken in the matter, and Conover served the 

remainder of the term.52

93rd Congress (1973–1974)

No election contests.

94th Congress (1975–1976)

Samuel H. Young v. Abner J. Mikva, 10th District of Illinois. On December 23, 1974, Young served Mikva and the 

Clerk of the House of Representatives with notice of his intention to contest the election of Mikva. Th e contestant alleged 
126 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

that votes were obtained by fraud and through widespread 

violations of the law. Specifi cally, the contestant alleged (1) 

that the contestee disseminated false information about the 

contestant prior to the election, and; (2) that the contestee 

accepted and failed to report a campaign contribution in 

violation of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

No specifi c evidence was off ered to support the general 

allegations of misrepresentation and failure to report contributions, nor did the contestant sustain the burden of proof 

to show misconduct infl uencing suffi cient votes to change 

the result of the election. Th e contestee moved to dismiss the 

contest for failure to state grounds suffi cient to change the 

results of the election. House Report 94-759 contains a full 

discussion of House precedents regarding the contestant’s 

burden of proof, the assumption of regularity of the returns, 

and the requirement that fraud be proven.

As to the argument that a full recount would change 

the result, Illinois state election law provides for a partial 

recount and leaves the decision as to whether or not further 

proceedings are warranted to the Houses of Congress. Th e 

contestant had a partial recount conducted in 124 of 533 precincts selected by the contestant. Th e Committee on House 

Administration determined that there was an insuffi cient 

showing that a full recount would change the outcome of 

the election because the result of the partial recount had been 

to reduce contestee’s 2,860 vote majority by only 471 votes.

Disposition. Th e Committee on House Administration 

decided that the contestant had failed to sustain the burden 

of proof necessary to award the contested seat to him. On 

December 19, 1975, the House passed H.Res. 894 (94th Congress) dismissing the election contest.53

Peter N. Kyros v. Davis F. Emery, 1st District of 

Maine. Under Maine state law, a recount is permitted when 

more than 100,000 votes are cast and the percentage difference of the vote between the two candidates is 1⁄2 of 1% 

or less; the voting in the Emery/Kyros election fell within 

those requirements. Kyros requested a state recount and in 

the recount, both parties agreed that all questionable ballots 

would be set aside as disputed. Both Kyros and Emery agreed 

and stipulated that only the U.S. House of Representatives 

could determine the validity of the ballots. On December 

27, 1974, the contestant fi led a Notice of Contest, sending 

copies to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the 

contestee, Emery.

Th e ballots under dispute were divided into three types, 

plus a fourth miscellaneous category. Th e three categories 

were: (1) Right Hand Ballots; (2) Apex Ballots, and; (3) Distinguishing or Irregular Marks. Where state law was uncertain, the Subcommittee on Elections used the “obvious voter 

intent” standard to determine the validity of ballots; where 

state law was certain, the Subcommittee would have been 

guided by those state laws only if it found a legitimate state 

interest, such as the safeguarding of the integrity of the electoral process. As it was, the Subcommittee found no such 

interest in the interpretations of state law proposed, so the 

Subcommittee was again guided by overriding considerations 

of equity and used the “obvious voter intent” standard to 

evaluate ballots.

Disposition. Th e contestant withdrew from the case in 

the middle of the Subcommittee’s review of the ballots, and 

on December 19, 1975, the House dismissed the election 

contest.54

Roderick J. Wilson v. Andrew J. Hinshaw, 40th District of California. On January 6, 1975, Wilson delivered a 

Notice of Intent to Contest to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Th e grounds of contest were numerous, including, alleged violations of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971, specifi cally, receipt of contributions by federal 

government contractors, misuse of the franking privilege, and 

misconduct of the contestee.

Disposition. Th e Committee declared that insuffi cient 

evidence had been presented to support the contestant’s allegations. Th e Committee stated that evidence of wrongdoing 

in election campaigns other than the one being contested 

is not relevant. Th e House then adopted H.Res. 896 (94th 

Congress) dismissing the election contest.55

William (Bill) Mack v. Louis A. Stokes, 21st District 

of Ohio. On December 10, 1974, Mack delivered a Notice 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 127

of Intention to Contest to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. As to the grounds of the contest, he questioned 

the qualifi cations of Stokes to be a Representative, rather 

than specifi c objections to the manner in which the election 

was conducted. Generally, the Notice alleged that Stokes was 

“not a bona fi de inhabitant possessing the requisite qualifi cations set forth in Article I, Section 2, clauses 1 and 2 of the 

U.S. Constitution.” Th ough the Committee stated it would 

have been more appropriate to have had the case raised by 

a petition or a memorial and presented to the House, the 

Committee retained the case and decided it on its merits, 

saying that similar standards were applicable. Under those 

standards, the contestant “must state adequate grounds” for 

disqualifi cation “with suffi cient particularity” to justify the 

continuance of the proceeding and make a “substantial off er 

to prove that contestee is disqualifi ed.”

Disposition. Th e Committee found that the contestant 

had not made any factual allegations suffi cient to cast doubt 

upon contestee’s qualifi cations and recommended dismissal. 

On December 19, 1975, the House adopted H.Res. 897 (94th

Congress) dismissing the election contest.56

Wayne Ziebarth v. Virginia Haven Smith, 3rd District 

of Nebraska. On December 30, 1974, Ziebarth fi led a Notice 

of Intention to contest stating as grounds for the contest the 

closeness of the election, the existence of overcounting and 

undercounting in precinct tallies, the opinion of a statistical 

recount expert that a recount would change the results of 

the election, and the fact that the state of Nebraska had no 

provisions for recounts.

In response, the contestee fi led a motion to dismiss based 

on a failure of the notice of contest to state grounds suffi cient 

to change the results of the election. Th e subcommittee gave 

the contestant 10 days to set forth a more defi nite statement, 

as “the House has consistently refused to grant a request for a 

recount solely on the grounds of a close vote and/or the absence 

of a state provision for recounting a congressional election.”

Th e amended notice of the contestant did not provide the 

requested details of the charge. Th e answer to the amended 

notice of contest attached an affi davit from the Secretary 

of State of Nebraska refuting the general allegations of the 

overcount and undercount. Th e contestant furnished no more 

particulars nor did he substantiate any of his generalities.

Disposition. After carefully stating the reasons for rejecting a recount request merely because of closeness and/or the 

lack of state recount provisions, the Committee found that 

the contestant had not pled with suffi cient particularity nor 

had he off ered preliminary proof of mistake in the original count, and recommended dismissal of the contest. On 

December 19, 1975, the House adopted H.Res. 898 (94th

Congress) dismissing election contest.57

95th Congress (1977–1978)

JoAnn Saunders v. Richard Kelly, 5th District of Florida. 

Contestee, Kelly, received a majority of 42,111 votes. Th e 

contestant, Saunders, challenged the election in accordance 

with the Federal Contested Elections Act (FCEA), 2 U.S.C. 

§§ 381 et seq. Th e contestant claimed that the Florida Ethics 

Commission conspired with the contestee to attack her candidacy. She further claimed that this attack led to her decline in 

the polls and eventual defeat. Th e contestee fi led a motion to 

dismiss. Th e Committee on House Administration concluded 

that the contestant failed to meet the burden of proof, by 

failing to present particularized pleadings and evidence, and 

therefore did not warrant the continuation of the contest. Th e 

Committee therefore granted the motion to dismiss.

Disposition. On April 28, 1977, the Committee unanimously adopted a motion to report H.Res. 525 (95th Congress) dismissing the election contest. Th e House adopted 

the measure on May 9, 1977.58

Ron Paul v. Bob Gammage, 22nd District of Texas.

Th e result of the November 2, 1976, election gave contestee 

Gammage a 236-vote majority. A recount of the vote, based on 

Texas state law, gave the contestee a 268-vote majority. While 

pursuing an election contest in state court (these proceedings were later terminated by the court), the contestant fi led a 

notice of contest, pursuant to the FCEA, with the Committee 

on House Administration. A panel of the Committee met 

to consider a motion to dismiss. Th e panel concluded that 

although the contestant’s pleadings were in proper form and 
128 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

alleged instances of irregular and perhaps even illegal voting, 

he failed to demonstrate that any or all of the allegations would 

have changed the result of the election. Th erefore, the Committee recommended that a resolution dismissing the contest 

be reported to the House of Representatives.

Disposition. Th e Committee, by a 16 to 6 vote, adopted 

a motion to report H.Res. 526 (95th Congress) dismissing 

the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on 

May 9, 1977.59

Samuel H. Young v. Abner J. Mikva, 10th District of 

Illinois. Th e proclamation of the offi cial canvass of the votes 

cast showed that Mikva had received 106,804 votes and that 

Young had received 106,603 votes, for a diff erence of 201 

votes. The contestant, Young, contended that there were 

irregularities or errors involved in the election. Under Illinois 

law, the contestant was granted a discovery recount. However, the contestant was unable to secure a judicial recount. 

Subsequently, the contestant fi led a notice of intention to 

contest the election. Th e contestant responded with a motion 

to dismiss. An ad hoc panel of the Committee convened to 

hear testimony on the motion. Th e panel concluded, by a 2 

to 1 vote, that the contestant failed to provide suffi cient and 

specifi c allegations, documents, affi davits of competent witnesses, or other materials which would enable to committee 

to determine that there were grounds suffi cient to change the 

result of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee, by a 16 to 6 vote, adopted 

a motion to report H.Res. 527 (95th Congress) dismissing 

the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on 

May 9, 1977.60

Edward C. Pierce v. Carl D. Pursell, 2nd District of 

Michigan. Th e offi cial canvass reported that Representative 

Pursell, received 95,397 votes and Pierce, received 95,053 

votes. After failing to obtain an inspection and review of the 

tally sheets or a recount, the Pierce fi led a notice of contest 

pursuant to the FCEA. He alleged that certain mistakes 

were committed in the election and asked that a recount be 

made in certain precincts. In response, Purcell fi led a motion 

to dismiss. An ad hoc panel of the Committee on House 

Administration convened to take testimony. Th e panel found 

that Pierce did not meet the burden of proof to overcome a 

motion to dismiss or to order a recount. As in earlier cases, 

the contestant failed to show that but for specifi c irregularities or acts of fraud, the results of the election would have 

been diff erent.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously adopted a 

motion to report H.Res. 528 (95th Congress) dismissing the 

contest against Representative Purcell. Th e House adopted 

the measure on May 9, 1977.61

Albert Dehr v. Robert L. Leggett, 4th District of 

California. Th e offi cial returns showed that the contestee, 

Leggett, received 75,866 votes and that the contestant, Dehr, 

received 75,202 votes. Th e margin consisted of 664 votes. 

Upon conclusion of a recount, the tally gave the contestee 

a total of 75,844 votes and the contestant a total of 75,190 

votes. Th e margin was reduced to 651 votes. Th e contestant 

fi led a notice of contest, under the FCEA, claiming that 14 

precincts were improperly counted. Th e ad hoc panel examined the allegation and concluded that there were no errors 

involving the ballots that would support the contestant’s 

claim. Th us, the ad hoc panel recommended that the contest 

be dismissed.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously adopted a 

motion to report H.Res. 770 (95th Congress) dismissing the 

election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on October 

27, 1977.62

Elsa Debra Hill and Felix J. Panasigui v. William 

Clay, 1st District of Missouri. In the primary election the 

contestee received 29,094 votes, contestant Hill received 574 

votes and contestant Panasigui received 957 votes. Th is case 

was brought by the “Concerned Citizens Committee of the 

First Congressional District” (CCC) on behalf of the named 

contestants. Initially, CCC petitioned the board of election 

commissioners for a new primary election based on its claim 

that voting irregularities and fraud had occurred. After an 

investigation, the board of election commissioners found that 

the complaint was without merit. CCC then fi led suit in both 

state and federal courts. Th ese suits were both dismissed for 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 129

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CCC also fi led a notice 

of complaint pursuant to the FCEA and requested a formal 

investigation by the Justice Department. Th e Justice Department concluded that the complaint was without foundation. 

Th e Committee also found that the allegations were without 

foundation and that there were insuffi cient grounds to change 

the election results. Moreover, the Committee concluded that 

the notice of contest and subsequent pleadings did not sustain 

the contestant’s claim of a right to the contestee’s seat.

Disposition. Th e Committee recommended the House 

adopt H.Res. 822 (95th Congress) dismissing the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on October 27, 1977.63

Wyman C. Lowe v. W. Wyche Fowler, Jr., 5th District 

of Georgia. In a special election contestee Fowler received 

29,898 votes and the contestant, Lowe, received 276 votes. 

In a runoff election, which did not include the contestant, the 

contestee received 54,378 votes and Lewis, a non-party to this 

action, received 32,732 votes. Th e contestant fi led a notice of 

contest under the FCEA which claimed that the contestee 

was ineligible to run for elected offi ce and that there was a 

presumption of fraud or irregularities. Th e contestee fi led a 

motion to dismiss, alleging that the contestant lacked standing and failed to state suffi cient grounds to change the result 

of the election. An ad hoc panel found that the contestee 

was not ineligible to run for congressional offi ce because 

he failed to resign from the City Council prior to seeking 

another elected offi ce.64 Th e panel also found that the disparity between the number of votes received by the contestant in 

his 1970 (36,194 votes) and 1977 (276 votes) election bids did 

not raise a presumption of fraud or irregularities. Moreover, 

the panel found that the minor discrepancies in the number 

of unused ballots returned were either explicable or normal. 

Th us, the ad hoc panel concluded that the allegations were 

unfounded and that there was insuffi cient evidence to overcome the contestee’s motion to dismiss.

Disposition. The Committee unanimously recommended that the House adopt H.Res. 825 (95th Congress) 

dismissing the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on Oct. 27, 1977.65

James Moreau v. Richard A. Tonry, 1st District of 

Louisiana. Reversing a lower appellate court decision, the 

Supreme Court of Louisiana reinstated a district court judgment dismissing plaintiff Moreau’s suit. Th e court found that, 

although illegal or fraudulent votes had been cast in favor of 

the defendant opponent, the votes were insuffi cient to change 

the outcome of the election and therefore, as required by the 

applicable Louisiana contested elections statute, the election 

could not be nullifi ed.66

Disposition. No report was fi led. Contestee resigned.

96th Congress (1979–1980)

Melvin Perkins v. Beverly Byron, 6th District of Maryland. In the general election the contestee, Byron, was elected 

by a majority vote of 122,374 to 14,276. Th e contestant, 

Perkins, fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA claiming 

that the contestee was improperly selected to replace her 

late husband, who had been nominated for reelection, as 

the Democratic nominee. Th e contestee fi led three separate 

motions to dismiss. Th e ad hoc panel recommended that the 

fi rst motion be granted based on the fact that the contestant 

failed to provide documented proof of service of the notice 

of contest on the contestee. Th e ad hoc panel also found that 

the contestant failed to provide any documentary evidence 

supporting his allegations and that he failed to demonstrate 

that the allegations, if true, would have changed the outcome 

of the election. Th e ad hoc panel did not deem it necessary to 

reach the question of whether the contestant failed to claim a 

right to the contestee’s seat.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously adopted a 

motion to report H.Res. 189 (96th Congress) dismissing the 

election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on March 

29, 1979.67

Debra Hanania-Freeman v. Parren J. Mitchell, 7th

District of Maryland. Th e offi cial canvass showed that the 

contestee, Mitchell, received 51,996 votes and the contestant, 

Hanania-Freeman, received 6,626 votes. Th e contestant fi rst 

fi led a petition in the Superior Court of Baltimore City for a 

writ of mandamus and a preliminary injunction. Th e court 

denied the contestant’s petition based on its fi nding that no 
130 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

irregularity or fraud existed in the election. Th ereafter, the 

contestant fi led a notice of intention to contest under the 

FCEA. Here, the contestant alleged inadequate and insufficient police protection of voting machines, conspiracy 

between the contestee and election offi cials, malfunction of 

voting machines due to tampering, improper and illegal certifi cation of the contestee, and various acts of fraud, violence, 

intimidation, assault, theft, extortion, and “dirty tricks.” 

Th e contestee made a motion to dismiss. Th e ad hoc panel 

determined that the contestant had failed to demonstrate by 

documentary evidence or otherwise, that the fraud, violence, 

intimidation, assault, theft, extortion, or “dirty tricks,” as 

alleged to have been involved in the conduct of the election, 

would have changed the results of the election. Th e panel 

further concluded that the contestant had failed to meet her 

burden on a motion to dismiss. Th us, the panel unanimously 

voted to recommend that the contest be dismissed.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted by unanimous 

vote a motion to report H.Res. 198 (96th Congress) dismissing the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on 

June 12, 1979.68

A. A. Sammy Rayner, Jr. v. Bennett M. Stewart, 1st 

District of Illinois. Th e general election resulted in the contestee, Stewart, being elected by a majority vote of 47,581 to 

33,540, a margin of 14,041 votes. Th e contestant, Rayner, 

originally fi led a civil suit claiming that there had been errors, 

irregularities, fraud and mistakes which impaired his right to 

vote and the right to have his vote counted. Th e court granted 

the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the fact that the 

House of Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction of the 

matter. Th ereafter, the contestant fi led a complaint under the 

FCEA, making the same allegations as in the civil suit and 

further alleging irregularities in the vote totals displayed on 

the backs of the voting machines, instances of illegal assistance of voters in casting their votes, the exclusion of the 

contestant’s vote-watchers from polling places, numerous 

counting errors, and electioneering. Th e contestee fi led a 

motion to dismiss. Th e ad hoc panel recommended that the 

motion be granted because the contestant failed to timely fi le 

the contest; failed to name the proper party to the contest; 

failed to include a statement in the notice of contest that the 

contestee had 30 days in which to fi le an answer; failed to 

serve the contestee properly; and failed to state grounds suffi cient to change the results of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously voted that 

the House adopt H.Res. 344 (96th Congress) dismissing the 

election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on June 

28, 1979.69

Jimmy Wilson v. Anthony Claude Leach, Jr., 4th

District of Louisiana. Th e offi cial canvass showed that the 

contestee, Leach, received 65,583 votes and the contestant, 

Wilson, received 65,317 votes. Th e contestee’s majority was 

266 votes. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest under the 

FCEA. Th e contestee followed with a motion to dismiss. Th e 

ad hoc panel delayed action on the motion to dismiss pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. Pursuant to a 

Federal grand jury investigation, the contestee was indicted 

on one count of conspiracy to pay voters in order to secure 

his election and 10 counts of paying voters. Th e contestee 

was later acquitted of these charges. Th e ad hoc panel, after 

reviewing information collected by the Department of Justice, did fi nd that fraud and irregularities were involved in 

the election. Th ere was, however, no fi nding of involvement 

by the contestee in any such activities. Moreover, the contestant failed to demonstrate that the fraud was of suffi cient 

magnitude to have changed the result of the election. Based 

on this conclusion, the panel voted, 2 to 1, to recommend 

dismissing the contest.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted by a vote of 11 to 

8, a motion to report H.Res. 575 (96th Congress) dismissing 

the election contest. The House adopted the measure on 

March 4, 1980.70

Leo K. Th orsness v. Th omas A. Daschle, 1st District 

of South Dakota. Th e results of the general election returned 

64,661 votes for the contestee, Daschle, and 64,647 votes for 

the contestant, Th orsness, a margin of 14 votes. A recount 

increased the contestee’s election margin to 105 votes. Th e 

contestant, followed by the contestee, fi led writs with the state 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 131

court. Th e court conducted a post-election review of 1,084 

contested ballots and determined that the contestee won the 

election by 110 votes. Following this decision, the contestant 

fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA. Th e contestant 

alleged that a review of more than 2,000 contested ballots 

would prove that he had received a plurality of the vote and 

that representatives of the contestee fraudulently and illegally conducted training sessions for members of the recount 

board. Th e contestee fi led a motion to dismiss. Upon stipulations by both parties the second charge was dismissed. Th e ad 

hoc panel, upon unanimous vote, determined that the fi rst 

count should also be dismissed because the panel was satisfi ed 

with the recount performed by the South Dakota Supreme 

Court. Moreover, the panel found that the contestant failed 

to state grounds suffi cient to change the result of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously adopted a 

motion to report H.Res. 576, (96th Congress) dismissing the 

election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on March 

4, 1980.71

97th Congress (1981–1982)

No election contests.

98th Congress (1983–1984)

Roy “Pat” Archer v. Ron Packard, 43rd District of California. Th e election results showed that the contestee, Packard, received 66,444 votes, the contestant, Archer, received 

57,995 votes and another candidate received 56,297 votes. 

Th is gave the contestee a plurality of 8,449 votes. Th e contestant initiated an election contest in both state court and in 

the House of Representatives, alleging a variety of inadequacies in the conduct of the election itself and in the conduct 

of the offi cials charged with overseeing the election. He also 

claimed that he obtained the highest number of legally cast 

votes. Th e court dismissed the case after concluding that the 

evidence was insuffi cient to show improprieties which would 

have changed the election. Th e Committee found that the 

contestant did not demonstrate with suffi cient evidence that 

any of the alleged irregularities aff ected the outcome of the 

election. Th e Committee also found that, with the exception 

of the defacement of some voting machines, there were no 

criminal violations involved. Th e Committee’s conclusion was 

based on the opinion of the superior court and the district 

attorney’s report.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 305 (98th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on November 15, 1983.72

William (Bill) Hendon v. James McClure Clarke, 11th

District of North Carolina. Th e offi cial vote count showed 

that the contestee, Clarke, received 85,410 votes and the contestant, Hendon, received 84,085 votes. Th e contestant fi led a 

request for a recount with fi ve county boards of elections and 

the state board of elections, claiming that the ballots in these 

counties were ambiguous and that certain laws governing 

the election were unconstitutional. Th is request was denied. 

Th e contestant then fi led suit in U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of North Carolina requesting a recount. Th e 

court ruled against the contestant. Th e U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Fourth Circuit, although agreeing that parts of the 

law governing the election were unconstitutional, refused to 

order a recount or invalidate the outcome of the election. Th e 

contestant then fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA, 

claiming that the program used to tabulate the computercounted ballots violated the equal protection clause of the 

14th Amendment of the Constitution and that had votes 

not been erroneously counted for the contestee the election 

result would have been diff erent. Th e contestant sought either 

a recount or invalidation of the vote. Th e contestee fi led a 

motion to dismiss. Th e Committee recommended dismissal 

on two grounds. First, the contestant’s evidence was too speculative to meet the burden of demonstrating that the outcome 

of the election was aff ected by the manner in which the fi ve 

counties counted ambiguously marked ballots. Second, the 

Committee found that a recount was an unwarranted remedy. 

Moreover, invalidation of the election would be improper 

because the contestant failed to challenge the ambiguities 

of the ballots in court prior to the election in question. Th e 

Committee considered the rationale of the Court of Appeals 

in making its determinations.
132 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 304 (98th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on November 15, 1983.73

99th Congress (1985–1986)

Frank McCloskey and Richard D. McIntyre, 8th District 

of Indiana. Th e November 1984 election in the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana pitted Democratic incumbent 

Representative Francis X “Frank” McCloskey against Republican Indiana state Representative Richard D. McIntyre. Election night ended with Representative McCloskey ahead by 72 

votes out of more than 234,000 votes cast. After a recount, 

however, on December 14, 1984, Indiana Secretary of State 

Edwin J. Simcox certifi ed McIntyre the winner by 34 votes.74

Th e McCloskey-McIntyre contested election has been 

pointed to by some observers as a seminal event in the modern 

history of the House, one which coalesced and empowered 

Republicans into more aggressive action against what they 

perceived as the procedural abuses of the longstanding Democratic majority in the House.75 Th e McCloskey-McIntyre race 

was up to that point, the closest House election contest of the 

20th century.76

On January 3, 1985, the opening day of the 99th Congress, Majority Leader James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) objected 

to Mr. McIntyre taking the oath of offi ce despite possessing 

the certifi cation of the Indiana Secretary of State.77 Instead, 

Representative Wright off ered a privileged resolution referring 

the question of the proper right to the seat to the Committee 

on House Administration for investigation, and barring either 

contestant from taking the oath until the conclusion of the 

committee’s inquiry.78 Under the terms of the resolution, both 

Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McCloskey were to be paid the daily 

salary of a Member of Congress and be provided with limited administrative staff support until the case was decided. 

Furthermore, the Clerk of the House was directed to render 

services to the constituents of Indiana’s 8th Congressional 

District until the election dispute was resolved.

During debate on the privileged resolution, Representative Wright asserted that the vote counting procedures in the 

race were “neither timely nor regular” and called into question 

the fairness of the outcome.79 Representative Wright further 

argued that holding the seat vacant pending an investigation 

by the Committee on House Administration was in keeping 

with a chamber precedent established in the 1961 contested 

election case of J. Edward Roush v. George O. Chambers of 

the 5th District of Indiana (described below). Republicans, 

including Mr. McIntyre himself, responded in debate that 

the Roush case was not analogous, and argued that under the 

universal practice of the House, a certifi cate of election issued 

by the Secretary of State qualifi ed a Member-elect to take the 

oath of offi ce.80 Representative McCloskey was present in the 

chamber during debate on the privileged resolution, but did 

not speak.81 Th e House agreed to H.Res. 1 by a party line vote 

of 238 to 177, 11 Members not voting.

On February 6, 1985, at the Committee on House 

Administration’s organizational meeting for the 99th Congress, the Committee appointed a Task Force to investigate 

the McCloskey-McIntyre election. Task Force members were 

Representatives Leon E. Panetta (D-CA), Chairman, as well 

as Representatives William L. Clay (D-MO), and William 

M. Th omas (R-CA). Prior to appointing the Task Force, the 

Committee rejected by a vote of 12-7 an eff ort by Committee 

on House Administration Ranking Member Representative 

Bill Frenzel (R-MN) to recommend the immediate seating 

of Mr. McIntyre. 

On February 7, 1985, Minority Leader Robert H. Michel 

off ered a privileged resolution82 on the House fl oor authorizing and directing the Speaker to administer the oath of offi ce 

to Mr. McIntyre, permitting him to serve conditionally until 

the completion of the Committee on House Administration 

election inquiry.83 Th e House voted 228-180-1 to refer the 

resolution to the Committee on House Administration. Five 

Democrats, Texas Representatives Sam B. Hall, Ralph M. 

Hall, and Charles W. Stenholm, as well as Representatives 

Romano L. Mazzoli (KY) and Douglas Applegate (OH) 

joined all Republicans in opposing the motion to refer.84

Th e fi rst formal investigative step taken by Chairman 

Panetta and the Task Force on the Eighth Congressional 

District of Indiana was to address the question of the security 

of the ballots cast in the contested election. While possessing 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 133

the authority to impound or subpoena election ballots, the 

Task Force chose instead to send a telegram on February 13 to 

all county clerks in the Eighth Congressional District asking 

them to maintain the security of the election-related materials 

in their possession in keeping with Indiana state law.85 Th e 

fi rst meeting of the Task Force on the Eighth Congressional 

District of Indiana took place on February 21, 1985. At that 

meeting, the Task Force adopted an organizational memorandum outlining the procedures it intended to adhere to 

in the course of the investigation, as well as written internal 

operating rules, a document outlining procedures for making 

claims of irregularity about ballots, and a public schedule of 

its future meetings.86 Th ese materials items were distributed 

to all members of the House in a February 25, 1985 “Dear 

Colleague” letter.87

On February 28, 1985, the Task Force held its second 

meeting at which it outlined the process for adopting rules 

for counting ballots which the Task Force would adhere to. 

Th ese rules were further debated and formally adopted at 

Task Force sessions on March 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, 1985. 

Th e rules, as well as an update on Task Force activities, were 

provided to all Members of the House in a second, March 

18, 1985, “Dear Colleague,” letter.88

On March 4, 1985, Minority Leader Michel off ered 

a second privileged resolution to permit Mr. McIntyre to 

serve conditionally pending the completion of the Task 

Force investigation.89 Representative Michel’s resolution took 

Democrats by surprise, being off ered without notice on what 

was expected to be a pro forma session day with no legislative business conducted.90 By a vote of 168-167, Democrats 

again stymied Michel’s eff ort by referring the resolution to 

the Committee on House Administration for consideration, 

avoiding a straight vote on it. Representative Douglas Applegate (OH), who had supported the substantially identical 

resolution Representative Michel had off ered on February 7, 

returned to the Democratic fold, casting the deciding vote 

to refer.91 On April 2, 1985, Michel off ered a third privileged 

resolution92 to conditionally seat Mr. McIntyre. Th e House 

again chose to refer the resolution the Committee on House 

Administration, by a ballot of 241-183-1.93

In late April, Republicans engaged in several instances 

of what media reports described as procedural “guerrilla warfare” on the House fl oor, triggering time consuming votes on 

minor parliamentary questions to protest their dissatisfaction 

with the Democratic majority’s handling of the McIntyreMcCloskey controversy. Minority party Members kept the 

House in session all night on April 22, and on April 25 succeeded in making the House adjourn without completing its 

scheduled legislative business.94

A majority of the Task Force, after fi nding that Indiana’s election process and recount procedure were unreliable, met to develop rules which would be applied in a 

House recount.95 Republican Task Force members expressed 

deep concern with these rules, calling them inconsistent 

with Indiana election law, and argued that they treated 

identical ballots in a non-uniform manner. Pursuant to 

these rules, the Task Force, with the assistance of auditors from the non-partisan General Accounting Offi ce,96

recounted the votes from the November 6, 1984 election. 

Th is recount gave McCloskey a four vote margin of victory 

over McIntyre. Th e Committee on House Administration 

adopted a motion to report H.Res. 146, a privileged resolution dismissing the election contest and declaring Mr. 

McCloskey as entitled to the seat. 

Th e four months of partisan confl ict ended when the 

House adopted H.Res. 146 on May 1, 1985, by a vote of 236-

190. Immediately following adoption of the resolution, Mr. 

McCloskey took the oath of offi ce in the well of the House. 

Upon his seating, the entire Republican membership of the 

House walked out of the chamber in protest. 

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 146 (99th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on May 1, 1985.97

Antonio Borja Won Pat v. Ben Blaz, Guam. The 

Guam Election Commission (the “Commission”) reported 

the results as 15,725 for the contestee, Blaz, and 15,402 for 

the contestant, Won Pat. Due to a disparity in the vote total, 

the Commission ordered a recount which resulted in 15,839 

votes for the contestee and 15,485 votes for the contestant. 

A similar disparity caused another recount which gave the 
134 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

contestee 15,853 votes and the contestant 15,498 votes. Th e 

contestant fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA claiming: (1) that the contestee did not win the election because 

he did not receive a majority of the votes cast as required 

by law; and (2) that the election results should be rejected 

because the Commission failed to comply with the requirements of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act and the 

Federal Voting Assistance Act. Th e Committee, agreeing 

with the Commission’s decision not to include blank ballots in the vote total, found that the contestee did receive a 

majority of the votes cast. Th e Committee also determined 

that the Commission did not violate either of the statutes 

cited by the contestant.

Disposition. Th e Committee unanimously adopted 

a motion to report H.Res. 229 (99th Congress) dismissing 

the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on 

July 24, 1985.98

George V. Hansen v. Richard Howard Stallings, 

2nd District of Idaho. Th e offi cial canvass of votes showed 

that the contestee, Stallings, received 101,266 votes and 

the contestant, Hansen, received 101,133 votes. A recount 

of approximately 10% of the District was conducted in all 

the precincts requested by the contestant. Th e offi cial vote 

tally after the partial recount gave the contestee 101,287 

votes and the contestant 101,117 votes. Th e contestant then 

fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA, claiming that 

illegal votes had been cast by persons not properly registered, 

which if removed would have changed the outcome of the 

election, and that he was denied a full recount, which would 

have changed the outcome of the election. Th e Committee 

found that voters were registered in accordance with Idaho 

law. Moreover, the Committee relied on the results of an 

investigation by the Idaho Attorney General which concluded that there were no instances in which an unqualifi ed 

person voted. Consequently, the Committee determined 

that there was no basis for fi nding that the election was 

tainted by illegal votes. The Committee also found the 

second allegation to be without foundation. In this respect, 

the Committee once again relied on decisions made by state 

offi cials. Both the Idaho Attorney General and the Idaho 

Supreme Court denied the contestant’s request for a full 

recount because the partial recount did not reveal suffi cient 

material diff erence’s in the result, when projected districtwide, to change the result of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted by a vote of 12 

to 1, a motion to report H.Res. 272 (99th Congress) dismissing the election contest. Th e House adopted the measure on 

October 2, 1985.99

100th Congress (1987–1988)

No election contests.

101st Congress (1989–1990)

No election contests.

102nd Congress (1991–1992)

No election contests.

103rd Congress (1993–1994)

Bill McCuen v. Jay Dickey, 4th District of Arkansas. An 

unoffi cial canvass of votes showed that the contestee, Dickey, 

received 113,004 votes and the contestant, McCuen, received 

102,911 votes. Th e certifying credentials issued by the governor gave the contestee 113,009 votes and the contestant 

102,918 votes. Th ereafter, the contestant fi led a complaint 

in the circuit court seeking a protective order regarding the 

voting machines used in the election. Th e court granted the 

order and, subsequently, ordered several inspections of these 

machines. Th e court later dismissed the complaint, citing 

lack of jurisdiction, but retained jurisdiction over the voting 

machines. Th e contestant then fi led a notice of contest under 

the FCEA claiming that the ballots and voting machines misled voters and that defective voting machines produced inaccurate totals. Th e Committee dismissed the fi rst allegation, 

fi nding that no irregularity, suffi cient to change the result 

of the election could reasonably be inferred by the design of 

the voting apparatus. Th e Committee also heard testimony 

concerning past problems with the programming of voting 

machines. However, the expert that testifi ed did not fi nd 

that such problems existed in this election. Consequently, the 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 135

Committee found that there was no merit to the contestant’s 

second allegation.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 182 (103rd Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on May 25, 1993.100

104th Congress (1995–1996)

Robert Anderson v. Charlie Rose, 7th District of North 

Carolina. Th e offi cial election returns showed that the contestee, Rose, received 62,670 votes and the contestant, Anderson, received 58,849 votes. Th e contestant fi led a complaint 

with the North Carolina Board of Elections and a notice of 

contest with the House of Representatives alleging election 

irregularities and fraud. Moreover, the contestant claimed 

that the contestee was not a resident of the 7th District of 

North Carolina (the Committee left this determination to 

North Carolina authorities). Although the contestant presented credible allegations that spotlighted serious and potentially criminal violations of election laws, they were not suffi cient to change the outcome of the election if proven true. 

Th us, the contestant’s evidence was not able to overcome the 

motion to dismiss fi led by the contestee.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 538 (104th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on September 26, 1996.101

Joseph S. Haas, Jr. v. Charles Bass, 2nd District of New 

Hampshire. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest under 

the FCEA claiming that the contestee failed to fi le an affi davit attesting to the fact that he was not a subversive person as 

defi ned by New Hampshire law. Th e contestant further claims 

right to the offi ce because he was the only qualifi ed candidate 

who submitted such an affi davit. Th e Committee found that the 

law relied upon by the contestant had been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and that it had been repealed 

by the New Hampshire legislature prior to the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 539 (104th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on September 26, 1996.102

Edward Munster v. Sam Gejdenson, 2nd District of 

Connecticut. After two recounts, the contestee, Gejdenson, 

was declared the winner by 21 votes. Th e contestant fi led a 

notice of contest claiming that errors of judgment were made 

by the vote counters. Without alleging fraud, however, the 

contestant did claim that 1,200 residents had been added 

improperly to the voting polls. Th e House Oversight Task 

Force voted 2 to 1 against dismissing the contest. A month 

later the contestant withdrew his challenge.

Disposition. Challenge withdrawn by the contestant.103

Susan M. Brooks v. Jane F. Harman, 36th District 

of California. Th e contestant, Brooks, had been the apparent winner on election night, with 82,415 to 82,322 votes. 

However, after mail-in votes were counted, the result showed 

that the contestee, Harman, had won by 93,939 to 93,127 

votes. Th e contestant then fi led a notice of contest under the 

FCEA, claiming that the 812-vote margin of victory was 

based on illegal ballots, including votes from nonresidents, 

minors and voters illegally registered at abandoned buildings and commercial addresses. Th e contestee fi led a motion 

to dismiss, claiming that the contestant fi led her notice of 

contest after the statutory period had expired. After deciding 

that the challenge merited further investigation, the task force 

voted, 2 to 1, to request for more information. Th e contestant 

withdrew her challenge two weeks after the task force held 

a fi eld hearing.

Disposition. Challenge withdrawn by the contestant.104

105th Congress (1997–1998)

Robert K. Dornan v. Loretta Sanchez, 46th District of 

California. Th e principal candidates for the November 5, 

1996 election for the Forty-sixth Congressional District of 

California were incumbent Representative Robert K. Dornan 

and challenger Loretta Sanchez. On November 22, 1996 the 

Orange County Registrar of Voters certifi ed Ms. Sanchez 

the election winner by 984 votes. Mr. Dornan requested a 

recount. On December 9, 1997, the Committee on House 

Oversight sent observers to Orange County to monitor 

recount procedures. As a result of that recount, Ms. Sanchez’s 

margin of victory was reduced to 979 votes.105

On December 4, 1997, the California Secretary of State 

announced the opening of an investigation into potential 
136 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

voter fraud in the Forty-sixth Congressional District election. Shortly thereafter, the Orange County California District Attorney announced that his offi ce was undertaking a 

similar investigation. Both investigations focused on, among 

other things, allegations that non-citizens had illegally voted 

in the November 5 election. On December 26, 1997, Mr. 

Dornan fi led a Notice of Contest with the Committee on 

House Oversight under the U.S. Constitution and the Federal 

Contested Elections Act (FCEA). On January 7, 1997, Ms. 

Sanchez was sworn in as a Member of the 105th Congress 

(1997–1998).

Pursuant to rule 16(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the 

Committee on House Oversight Committee Chairman 

William M. Th omas established a Task Force on January 

8, 1997 to examine the documentary record, to receive oral 

arguments, and to recommend to the full House Oversight 

Committee the disposition of the election contest fi led by Mr. 

Dornan. Task Force members were: Representatives Vernon 

J. Ehlers (R-MI), Chairman; Robert W. Ney (R-OH); and 

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD).

On January 31, 1997, Ms. Sanchez fi led a Motion to 

Dismiss Notice of Election Contest. On February 10, 1997, 

Mr. Dornan submitted an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 

detailing his allegations of voter fraud which he claimed 

occurred. On February 12, 1997, the Task Force received a 

letter from Ms. Sanchez requesting that the Task Force withhold consideration of her motion’ until after the Task Force 

had conducted a hearing in Orange County, California. On 

February 26, 1997, the Task Force met offi cially for the fi rst 

time. At the meeting, Task Force Chairman Ehlers acknowledged Ms. Sanchez’s request for a hearing in California and 

recommended that the request be granted. 

Ms. Sanchez’s Motion to Dismiss the election contest 

rested on the grounds that Mr. Dornan failed to make “credible allegations of irregularities of fraud which, if subsequently 

proven true, would likely change the result of the election.” 

Th e Task Force voted to postpone the disposition of the Sanchez motion to dismiss until a hearing on the merits. Th is 

decision was based on the Task Force’s majority view that 

substantial and credible allegations of fraud were contained 

in Mr. Dornan’s Notice. Under the FCEA, the postponement 

of a decision on Ms. Sanchez’s Motion to Dismiss triggered 

the beginning of the process of legal discovery by Mr. Dornan, and provided him with the ability to obtain subpoenas 

from the Federal District Court to employ in that discovery 

process. Over the course of the contest, Mr. Dornan issued 

nearly 100 subpoenas to parties involved in the dispute. 

On April 19, 1997, the Task Force held a hearing in 

Orange County, California, on the merits of Ms. Sanchez’s 

motion to dismiss. During the hearing, the Task Force heard 

presentations from Mr. Dornan and Ms. Sanchez as well as 

testimony from witnesses, including California Secretary of 

State Bill Jones, Orange County District Attorney Michael 

Capizzi, Orange County Registrar of Voters Rosalyn Lever, 

and Director of the Los Angeles Region of the Immigration 

and Nationality Service, Richard Rogers.

In his presentation at the April 19, 1997 hearing, Mr. 

Dornan narrowed the allegations upon which his Notice was 

based to his charges that non-citizens voted in the election 

and that voting irregularities, such as the improper delivery 

of absentee ballots, double voting, and so-called “phantom” 

voting, infl uenced the outcome of the contest. In support of 

his allegations, Mr. Dornan submitted, among other things, 

affi davits and witness statements, charts, newspaper accounts, 

and correspondence.

On April 24, 1997, the Committee sent a request to 

the INS headquarters in Washington, D.C. asking that they 

perform a comparison of the Orange County voter list and 

several INS databases. in an eff ort to discern voting by noncitizens. Over the course of the next eleven months, the committee conducted an exhaustive investigation of the 46th

District contest, during which it compared voter registration information with federal immigration records, made 

numerous demands for information from involved parties, 

including the issuance of multiple subpoenas. Many of the 

Committee’s requests for information were complied with, 

while others were contested by groups involved in the inquiry. 

For example, on May 5th, Chairman Bill Th omas held a press 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 137

conference to announce that the INS had failed to cooperate 

with numerous requests for assistance in reviewing the citizenship status of CA-46 voters. Additionally, on September 

30, 1997, Th e House of Representatives agreed to H. Res. 

244, demanding that the Offi ce of the United States Attorney 

for the Central District of California fi le criminal charges 

against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, a private group 

which was alleged to have facilitated voting by ineligible 

persons, for failure to comply with a valid subpoena under 

the Federal Contested Elections Act. Th ere were 219 votes 

cast in the favor of the resolution and 203 against it. During 

the conduct of the investigation, Committee staff expended 

hundreds of hours of work, including conducting detailed 

examinations of documents and interviewing individuals 

associated with the election contest. Th e investigation was 

slow and often diffi cult, and in 1997 and 1998, Democratic 

Members of the House introduced over 60 privileged resolutions that would have either required the Committee to 

conclude its investigation or which dealt with some aspect of 

the committee’s work. 

The Task Force on Elections, having completed an 

extensive comparison between the Orange County voters’ 

registration fi les and INS databases, ultimately reported its 

fi ndings as follows:

The Task Force was able to clearly and convincingly document that 624 persons had illegally registered and thus were not eligible to cast ballots in 

the November 1996 election. In addition, the Task 

Force discovered 196 instances where there was a 

circumstantial indication that a voter registered illegally. Further, the Orange County Registrar of voters 

voided 124 improper absentee ballots. In total, the 

Task Force found clear and convincing evidence that 

748 invalid votes were cast in this election. However, 

the number of ballots for which the Task Force and 

Committee has clear and convincing evidence that 

they were cast improperly by individuals not eligible 

to vote in the November 1996 election is less than 

the 979-vote margin in this election.106

Having concluded one of the most lengthy and comprehensive congressional investigations in history, on February 4, 

1998, by a vote of 8-1, the full Committee on House Oversight agreed to a motion to report H.Res. 355, a resolution 

dismissing the contest, favorably to the House. Th is resolution 

was adopted by the House on February 12, 1998, by a vote 

of 378-33.107

106th Congress (1999–2000)

No election contests.

107th Congress (2001–2002)

No election contests.

108th Congress (2003–2004)

Steve Tataii v. Ed Case, 2nd District of Hawaii. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest under the FCEA asserting that 

when the contestant challenged the late Representative Patsy 

Mink in the 2002 Democratic primary, where he received 

15% of the vote, Representative Mink should have been disqualifi ed as a primary candidate because she was seriously ill 

at the time of the primary election and passed away one week 

later. Contestant argued that he should have been declared 

the Democrat nominee by default, and that as the nominee, 

he therefore would have been the inevitable winner of the general election. Th e Committee found that the FCEA does not 

contemplate considering notices of contest that are based on 

the conduct of primary elections. Th erefore, the Committee 

concluded that the basis for the contestant’s notice of contest 

was outside the scope of the FCEA, and voted to dismiss as 

a frivolous election contest.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 317 (108th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on July 15, 2003.108

J. Patrick Lyons v. Bart Gordon, 6th District of Tennessee. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest under the 

FCEA alleging that the contestee, Gordon, committed violations of the Constitution amounting to acts of insurrection 

because contestee, as an incumbent Member of Congress, did 

not resign his seat prior to seeking re-election and because as 

an inactive member of the Tennessee Bar, contestee violated 
138 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the separation of powers principle in the U.S. Constitution 

by remaining a “Judicial Offi cer of the Courts of Tennessee” 

while serving as a “Legislative Offi cer of the United States.” 

Th e contestant made no allegations of irregularities, fraud, or 

wrongdoing with respect to the election. 

Th e Committee found that in order to have standing 

under the FCEA, a contestant must have been a candidate for 

election to the House of Representatives in the last preceding 

election and claim a right to the contestee’s seat. Th e Committee found that the contestant met the fi rst prong of the twopart test. With regard to the second prong, the Committee 

found that by claiming a right to the contestee’s seat because 

the contestee was ineligible/not qualifi ed to appear on the 

November 5, 2003 ballot, the contestant “fails to explain the 

logical connection between the contestee’s alleged ineligibility 

and the contestant’s entitlement to the contestee’s congressional seat.” Th e Committee, however, chose not to resolve 

the issue of whether failure to explain the nexus between the 

alleged election defi ciencies and the contestant’s right to the 

seat is suffi cient to establish standing. Instead, the Committee 

stated that as a threshold matter, it would proceed to consider 

a notice of contest only if the notice states grounds suffi cient 

to change the result of the election. Th at is, the Committee 

found that a contestant must allege irregularities, fraud, or 

wrongdoing that, if proven, would likely overturn the original 

election outcome. Due to the fact that the contestant did not 

advance allegations of irregularity or fraud or objections to the 

accuracy of the vote totals, which showed him receiving 2% 

of the vote and the contestee receiving 66%, the Committee 

voted to dismiss as a frivolous election contest.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 318 (108th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on July 15, 2003.109

109th Congress (2005–2006)

J. Patrick Lyons v. Bart Gordon, 6th District of Tennessee.

In a “virtually identical” notice of contest to the one fi led 

and dismissed during the 108th Congress, the contestant 

fi led a notice of contest, under the FCEA, asserting that the 

contestee, Gordon, committed violations of the Constitution 

amounting to acts of insurrection because, as an incumbent 

Member of Congress, the contestee did not resign his seat 

prior to seeking re-election and because, as an inactive member of the Tennessee Bar, the contestee violated the separation 

of powers principle in the U.S. Constitution by remaining a 

“Judicial Offi cer of the Courts of Tennessee” while serving 

as a “Legislative Offi cer of the United States.” Th e contestant 

made no allegations of irregularities, fraud, or wrongdoing 

with respect to the election.

Similar to its fi nding during the 108th Congress contest, 

the Committee found that it would proceed to consider a 

notice of contest only if the notice stated grounds suffi cient to 

change the result of an election, that is, allegations of irregularities, fraud, or wrongdoing with respect to an election that, 

if proven, would likely overturn the original election outcome. 

Absent that, the Committee noted, it would recommend 

dismissal of the contest. In this contest, the Committee determined that challenges to the qualifi cations of a Member-elect 

to serve in Congress generally fell outside the purview of the 

FCEA, which was designed to consider allegations relating 

to the actual conduct of an election. Th e Committee further 

noted that nothing in the contestant’s notice persuaded the 

Committee to reconsider this established interpretation of 

the statute.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 239 (109th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on April 27, 2005.110

110th Congress (2007–2008)

Cox v. McCrery, 4th District of Louisiana. Th e contestant 

alleged that the contestee was not, when elected on November 

7, 2006, an inhabitant of the state of Louisiana within the 

meaning of the Qualifi cations Clause, Article 1, Section 2, 

Clause 2 of the Constitution. In response, the contestee maintained that he fully satisfi ed the inhabitancy requirement, and 

provided an affi davit from the owner of the property attesting 

to the fact that he maintained a residence in Shreveport.

Disposition. On June 6, 2007, the Committee found 

that the contest should not have been brought before the 

House under the FCEA, and adopted a motion to report 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 139

H.Res. 462 (110th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on June 12.111

Jennings v. Buchanan, 13th District of Florida.

On November 7, 2006, Republican Vern Buchanan and 

Democrat Christine Jennings competed in the general election to represent the open seat for the 13th Congressional 

District of Florida. Of the 238,249 votes cast, Jennings 

received 118,737 votes and Buchanan received 119,105, a 

368-vote margin of victory. Pursuant to Florida state law, 

the Elections Canvassing Commission ordered a recount 

to verify the margin of victory. Following the recount, on 

November 20, 2006, the Elections Canvassing Commission 

certifi ed 119,309 votes for Buchanan and 118,940 votes for 

Jennings, with Buchanan prevailing by 369 votes. Th ese 

election results, however, were controversial, as Sarasota 

County reported an almost 15% undervote, an unusually 

high number of undervotes compared to other counties in 

the congressional district. Of the 123,901 ballots cast in 

Sarasota County, 18,000 did not show a vote cast for the 

District-13 congressional race.

On December 20, 2006, in addition to fi ling a state 

court suit, Ms. Jennings fi led a Notice of Contest with the 

House of Representatives under the FCEA and pursuant to 

the authority vested in the House by the U.S. Constitution. 

On January 4, 2007, Committee on House Administration 

Chairwoman Millender-McDonald wrote to the Florida 

court to express concern whether the State’s proceedings 

regarding access to evidence that could resolve the contested 

election matter at the State level would facilitate resolution of the election contest proceedings pending before the 

House. A complete record, she stated, would facilitate the 

House’s consideration of Ms. Jennings’ pending contest.

On January 4, 2007, Mr. Buchanan was sworn in as a 

Member of the 110th Congress. On January 19, 2007, Mr. 

Buchanan fi led a Motion to Dismiss in which he argued 

that the contestant’s case was based upon conjecture and 

speculation. In support of his characterization of the contest, 

he pointed out that the State of Florida conducted an audit of 

the voting systems in Sarasota County and found that they 

had operated properly.

On January 22, 2007, Chairwoman Millender-McDonald requested that the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections preserve all materials utilized in the election. On March 

23, 2007, Ms. Millender-McDonald established a threemember Task Force to oversee matters relating to the election contest. Chairwoman Millender-McDonald appointed 

Representative Charles Gonzalez as Task Force Chair and 

Representative Zoe Lofgren as a member. On April 16, 2007, 

Ranking Member Vernon Ehlers recommended that Representative Kevin McCarthy serve as the Minority member 

of the Task Force. Shortly after Chairwoman MillenderMcDonald’s death on April 22, 2007, the then-acting Chairman, Representative Robert Brady, appointed Representative 

McCarthy to serve as the Minority Task Force member on 

April 25, 2007. 

Th e Task Force fi rst met on May 2, 2007, when it unanimously voted to retain the Government Accountability Offi ce 

(GAO) to investigate the factors that contributed to the 

unusually high number of undervotes in Sarasota County. 

Th e GAO was also asked to evaluate and recommend whether 

additional testing was needed to establish whether the voting 

machines contributed to the undervote.

On June 14, 2007, the Task Force unanimously approved 

the GAO’s Engagement Plan, which detailed its scope of 

work and approach to determine to what extent the voting 

machines used in Sarasota County could have contributed 

to the large undervote and ascertain whether additional testing was needed to determine whether machine malfunction 

contributed to the undervote. Th e Task Force also agreed 

that Chairman Gonzalez would transmit the GAO Engagement Plan to both parties to the contest and provide them 

seven days to comment on the plan. Th e parties were asked 

to address central questions relating to the adequacy or inadequacy of prior testing of the electronic voting machines, 

whether additional tests were needed, and provide suggested 

testing protocols in the event that additional testing was 

required. Further, the Task Force agreed that Chairman 

Gonzalez should notify all individuals, offi ces, and entities 

identifi ed in the GAO plan that the Task Force sought their 

full, prompt, and voluntary cooperation with the GAO.
140 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

On August 3, 2007, at a public meeting of the Task 

Force, the GAO provided a status report on the progress of 

its Engagement Plan. Th e GAO testifi ed that it had been 

analyzing ballot results and reviewing existing testing eff orts 

such as the Florida election audit. Th e GAO also off ered its 

preliminary observations of the Florida parallel test, source 

code review, and audit of the Sarasota County voting systems.

On October 2, 2007, the GAO stated that further testing could provide increased assurance that the voting systems 

did not cause. the undervotes in Florida’s Th irteenth Congressional District. During its analysis, GAO found that, while 

prior testing and reviews by the State of Florida and Sarasota 

County provided some degree of assurance that certain components of the voting systems in Sarasota County functioned 

correctly, such testing and reviews were insuffi cient to provide 

adequate assurance that the voting systems did not contribute 

to the undervotes. Following GAO’s testimony, the Task 

Force unanimously authorized GAO to conduct its recommended testing on the Sarasota County voting systems.

On February 8, 2008, GAO provided the Task Force 

with the results from the additional testing it conducted on 

the fi rmware, ballot, and calibration of the touch screen voting machines. GAO concluded that the voting systems used 

in Sarasota County did not contribute to the undervote and 

further testing was not necessary. GAO also acknowledged 

that ballot design or voter confusion or apathy in the race 

could have contributed to the 18,000 undervotes. Following 

the GAO testimony the Task Force unanimously moved to 

report to the Committee on House Administration that the 

election contest in District-13 be dismissed.

On February 12, 2008, the Committee on House 

Administration met to consider the recommendation of the 

Task Force for the election contest. During this meeting, the 

Committee unanimously voted to report favorably to the 

House an original resolution to dismiss the election contest. 

February 14, reported as an original resolution. Th e House 

adopted H. Res. 989 on February 25.112

Gonzalez v. Diaz-Balart, 21st District of Florida. Th e 

contestant maintained that the offi cial election results were 

incorrect because of irregularities associated with the electronic voting machines. Specifi cally, the contestant alleged 

that the electronic voting machines did not accurately record 

votes cast, producing unreliable and incorrect results, based 

on the theory that the machines were hacked or had their 

data tabulations altered by electronic means. Contestants 

also maintained that an accurate recount of the votes could 

never be conducted because the electronic voting machines 

were not equipped with a verifi ed voter paper audit trail. Th e 

contestant further argued that the vote totals were unreliable 

because the supervisor of elections failed to comply with certain testing and operational requirements for electronic voting 

machines, pursuant to Florida law. In response, the contestee 

fi led a motion to dismiss the contest based on the contestant’s 

failure to fi le a timely notice of contest with the Clerk of the 

House, pursuant to the FCEA fi ling requirements.

Th e Committee determined that in order to survive a 

motion to dismiss, a contestant must proff er allegations that, 

if proven, would have altered the outcome of the election. In 

his notice of contest, the contestant relied on affi davits from 

voters in a precinct holding an election for another congressional district indicating a discrepancy in vote totals. Th e Committee concluded that the contestant’s reliance on allegations 

of electronic voting machine error in another congressional 

district is irrelevant and not persuasive, and even if proven 

true, did not establish that the electronic voting machines 

used in the contestant’s race are inherently unreliable and 

failed to record votes accurately.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 459 (110th Congress) dismissing the election contest. 

Th e House adopted the measure on June 12, 2007.113

Curtis v. Feeney, 24th District of Florida. Th e contestant maintained that the offi cial election results were incorrect 

due to alleged irregularities associated with electronic voting 

machines. Specifi cally, the contestant asserted that the software of the electronic voting machines was manipulated and 

the machines hacked, and due to the fact that the machines 

did not produce a verifi ed voter paper audit trail, an accurate count could never be discerned. Th e contestant further 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 141

argued that the election results were also compromised by 

the failure of the local boards of election to impose necessary procedural safeguards. In response, the contestee fi led a 

motion to dismiss the contest because the contestant failed to 

claim a right to the offi ce and to support the claim of voting 

irregularities with specifi c credible allegations of irregularities 

or fraud that if proven true, would be suffi cient to change the 

result of the election.

Th e Committee found that the contestant had failed to 

make a credible and specifi c claim that he was entitled to the 

offi ce, and that his claims were conjecture and speculation, 

unsupported by specifi c and credible allegations of irregularity suffi cient to put into doubt the outcome of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 461 (110th Congress) dismissing the contest. The 

House adopted the measure on June 12, 2007.114

Russell v. Brown-Waite, 5th District of Florida. Th e 

contestant alleged that the offi cial election results were incorrect due to purported irregularities associated with electronic 

voting machines. Specifi cally, the contestant asserted that the 

electronic voting machines produced unreliable and incorrect 

results based on a theory that the machines were hacked or 

had their data tabulations altered by electronic means. Th e 

contestant further argued that an accurate recount of the 

votes could never be discerned because the electronic voting 

machines were not equipped with a verifi ed paper audit trail. 

In response, the contestee fi led a motion to dismiss the contest based on the contestant’s failure to fi le a timely notice of 

contest with the Clerk of the House, pursuant to the FCEA 

fi ling requirements.

Th e Committee determined that in order to survive a 

motion to dismiss, a contestant must proff er allegations that, 

if proven, would have altered the outcome of the election. In 

his notice of contest, the contestant relied on affi davits from 

voters indicating a discrepancy of six votes between the contestant and the contestee, and therefore argued that there was 

suffi cient evidence to place into doubt the overall results. Th e 

Committee concluded that because the contestee was certifi ed as the winner by 53,462 votes, far exceeding the six vote 

diff erential proff ered by the contestant, that his allegations 

were unsubstantiated speculation, insuffi cient to change the 

results of the election.

Disposition. Th e Committee adopted a motion to report 

H.Res. 463 (110th Congress) dismissing the contest. The 

House adopted the measure on June 12, 2007.115

111th Congress (2009–2010)

Tataii v. Abercrombie (H.Rept. 111-68), 1st District of 

Hawaii. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest under the 

FCEA alleging that the offi cial election results should be 

invalidated because the contestee deliberately avoided a 

debate with the contestant and that but for the contestee’s 

alleged refusal to debate, the contestant would have won the 

election. Th e Committee on House Administration found 

that the certifi cates of election were signed by Hawaii’s chief 

election offi cer on November 24, 2008; therefore, in order to 

be timely pursuant to Section 382(a) of the FCEA, the contestant would have had to fi le a notice of contest by December 

24, 2008. Th e contestant fi led a notice of contest on January 

16, 2009. Th e Committee noted that due to an elections contest fi led by the contestant in the Supreme Court of Hawaii, 

the certifi cate of election was not delivered by the state to the 

U.S. House of Representatives until December 16, 2008, 

when the court made a final determination. Noting that 

the FCEA expressly provides that a notice of contest must 

be fi led within 30 days of elections results being declared, 

the Committee announced that the contestant’s notice of 

contest was untimely. Nonetheless, acknowledging that the 

contestant may have received inaccurate advice on timely 

fi ling, the Committee decided to evaluate the contestant’s 

claims on the merits.

Th e Committee determined that the contestant failed 

to make a credible and specifi c claim that he was entitled 

to the offi ce because in order to prevail, a contestant must 

proff er allegations that, if proven, would have altered the election outcome. According to the Committee, the contestant 

failed to provide any information demonstrating that a public 

debate would have altered the election outcome and submitted unsupported speculation that did not cast suffi cient doubt 
142 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

on the election results to merit further investigation. Drawing 

any other conclusion, the Committee announced, would 

remove the presumption of regularity that attaches to the state 

certifi cation of election results. Accordingly, the Committee 

found that the contestant failed to meet the required burden 

under the FCEA.

Disposition. On March 31, 2009, the House passed 

H.Res. 303, dismissing the contest.

112th Congress (2011–2012)

No election contests.

Endnotes

1 Charles T. Howell, “Contested Elections,” in Donald C. Bacon, 

Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds., Th e Encyclopedia of 

the United States Congress, 4 vols. ( New York: Simon & Schuster, 

1995), vol. 2, p. 570.

2 Ibid.

3 1 Stat. 537-539 (Jan. 23, 1798).

4 9 Stat. 568-570 (Feb. 19, 1851); 17 Stat. 408-409 (Jan. 10, 1873); 

17 Stat. 490 (Mar. 3, 1873); 18 Stat. 338 (Mar. 2, 1875); 20 Stat. 

400 (Mar. 3, 1879); and 24 Stat. 445-449 (Mar. 2, 1887).

5 83 Stat. 284-291 (Dec. 5, 1969)

6 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Contested Election Act, report to accompany 14195, 91st Cong., 1st

sess., H.Rept. 91-569 (Washington: GPO, 1969), p. 2.

7 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Contested Election Act, report to accompany 18797, 90th Cong., 

2nd sess., H.Rept. 1916 (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 2. See also: 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Analysis of 

H.R. 18104, A Bill to Revise the Law Governing Contests of Elections of Members of the House of Representatives, and For Other 

Purposes, committee print, 90th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1968).

8 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Contested Election Act, report to accompany 14195, 91st Cong., 1st 

sess., H.Rept. 91-569 (Washington: GPO, 1969), p. 3. See also: 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Analysis of 

H.R. 14195, A Bill to Revise the Law Governing Contests of Elections 

of Members of the House of Representatives, and For Other Purposes, 

committee print, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1969).

9 Rep. Watkins M. Abbitt, “Federal Contested Election Act,” 

Congressional Record, remarks in the House, vol. 115, Oct. 20, 

1969, p. 30510.

10 “Federal Contested Election Act,” Congressional Record, remarks 

in the House, vol. 115, Oct. 20, 1969, pp. 30507-30514, and Nov. 

20, 1969, pp. 35071–35072; and P.L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284-291 

(Dec. 5, 1969).

11 2 U.S.C. §382(a).

12 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Contested Election Act, report to accompany H.R. 14195, 91st Cong., 

1st sess., H.Rept. 91-569 (Washington: GPO, 1969), p. 4.

13 2 U.S.C. §26.

14 See McCloskey and McIntyre. “Referring Election of a Member 

From the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana to the Committee on House Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Jan. 3, 

1985, pp. 381–388 (hereinafter cited as McCloskey and McIntyre); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to 

Election of a Representative From the Eighth Congressional District 

of Indiana, report to accompany H.Res. 146, 99th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 99-58 (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 2–4 (hereinafter 

cited as H.Rept. 99-58); and Roush v. Chambers, U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Report Pursuant to H.Res. 1, 

A Resolution Directing an Investigation of the Question of the Right of J. 

Edward Roush or George O. Chambers, From the Fifth Congressional 

District of Indiana, to a Seat in the Eighty-Seventh Congress. Examination and Recount of the Votes Cast for Representative in Congress, Fifth 

Congressional District of Indiana, at the General Election of November 

8, 1960. Counties of Blackford, Clinton, Grant, Howard, Huntington, 

Jay, Madison, Miami, Tipton, Wabash, 2 vols., 97th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 513 (Washington: GPO, 1961), p. 3 (hereinafter cited as 

H.Rept. 97-513).

15 McCloskey and McIntyre, pp. 381–388

16 See generally, McCloskey and McIntyre, pp. 381–388; H.Rept. 

97-58, pp. 1–4; and H.Rept. 99-58, pp. 3–4.

17 See Wilson v. McLaurin: U.S. Congress, House Committee 

on Elections No. 3, Joshua E. Wilson v. John McLaurin, report to 

accompany H.Res. 296, 54th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1566 (Washington: GPO, 1896). See also Tunno v. Veysey: U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest in the Th irty-Eighth Congressional District of California, report 

to accompany H.Res. 507, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 92-626 

(Washington: GPO, 1971).

18 For further information regarding House contested election 

cases see CRS report 98-194A, House Contested Election Cases: 1933 

to 2005, by L. Paige Whitaker; Chester H. Rowell, A Historical 

Digest of All Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives of the United States From the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 

1789–1901 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976); and Merrill 

Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election 

Cases in the House of Representatives of the United States, From the 

Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901–1917

(Washington: GPO, 1917).

19 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative to the Contested Election Case of Mankin Against Davis, Fifth 

Congressional District of Georgia, report to accompany H.Res. 552, 
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 143

80th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 1822 (Washington: GPO, 1948); and 

“Election Contest—Mankin Against Davis of Georgia,” Congressional Record, vol. 94, Apr. 27, 1948, p. 4902.

20 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative 

to the Contested Election Case of Lowe Against Davis, Fifth Congressional District of Georgia, report to accompany H.Res. 553, 80th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 1823 (Washington: GPO, 1948); and 

“Election Contest—Lowe Against Davis,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 94, Apr. 27, 1948, p. 4902.

21 U.S. Congress, House, Contest for a Seat in the House of Representatives From the Eighth Congressional District of Virginia, H. Doc. 

213, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1947); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Relative to the ContestedElection Cases of Harold C. Woodward Against Th omas J. O’Brien, 

Sixth Congressional District of Illinois: Frederick M. Roberts Against 

Helen Douglas, Fourteenth Congressional District of California; and 

Lawrence Michael Against Howard W. Smith, Eighth Congressional 

District of Virginia, report to accompany H.Res. 345, 80th Cong., 

1st sess., H.Rept. 1106 (Washington: GPO, 1947); U.S. Congress, 

House, Contested Election Case of Lawrence Michael Against 

Howard W. Smith, H. Doc. 418, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1947); “Contested—Election Case—Lawrence Michael 

Against Howard W. Smith,” Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 25, 

1947, p. 10268; and “Election Contests,” Congressional Record, vol. 

93, July 26, 1947, p. 10445.

22 U.S. Congress, House, Contest of Election of Helen Gahagan 

Douglas, H. Doc. 416, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1947); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative to the Contested-Election Cases of Harold C. Woodward Against 

Th omas J. O’Brien, Sixth Congressional District of Illinois: Frederick M. Roberts Against Helen Douglas, Fourteenth Congressional 

District of California; and Lawrence Michael Against Howard W. 

Smith, Eighth Congressional District of Virginia, report to accompany 

H.Res. 345, 80th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1106 (Washington: GPO, 

1947); “Contested Election—Frederick M. Roberts Against Helen 

Gahagan Douglas, Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 25, 1947, p. 

10211; and “Election Contests,” Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 

26, 1947, p. 10445.

23 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative to the Contested-Election Cases of Harold C. Woodward Against 

Th omas J. O’Brien, Sixth Congressional District of Illinois: Frederick M. Roberts Against Helen Douglas, Fourteenth Congressional 

District of California; and Lawrence Michael Against Howard W. 

Smith, Eighth Congressional District of Virginia, report to accompany 

H.Res. 345, 80th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1106 (Washington: GPO, 

1947); and “Election Contests,” Congressional Record, vol. 93, July 

26, 1947, p. 10445.

24 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative 

to the Contested Election Case of Wilson Against Granger, First 

Congressional District of Utah, report to accompany H.Res. 692, 

80th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 2418 (Washington: GPO, 1948); 

and “Contested Election—Wilson Against Granger,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 94, June 19, 1948, pp. 9184–9185.

25 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative 

to the Contested Election Cases of Browner Against Cunningham, Fifth 

Congressional District of Iowa; Fuller Against Davies, Th irty-Fifth 

Congressional District of New York; and Th ierry Against Feighan, 

Twentieth Congressional District of Ohio, report to accompany 

H.Res. 324, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1252 (Washington: GPO, 

1949); and “Election Contests Dismissed: Browner v. Cunningham, 

Fifth District, Iowa; Fuller v. Davies, Th irty-Fifth District, New 

York; and Th ierry Against Feighan, Twentieth District, Ohio,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 95, Aug. 11, 1949, p. 11294 (hereinafter 

cited as “Election Contests Dismissed”).

26 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Contest 

for a Seat in the House of Representatives From the Sixth Congressional 

District of Michigan, report to accompany H.Res. 503, 81st Cong., 

2nd sess., H.Rept. 1735 (Washington: GPO, 1950); and “Contested 

Election Case—George D. Stevens v. William W. Blackney,” Congressional Record, vol. 96, May 23, 1950, p. 7544. 

27 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative 

to the Contested Election Cases of Browner Against Cunningham, Fifth 

Congressional District of Iowa; Fuller Against Davies, Th irty-Fifth 

Congressional District of New York; and Th ierry Against Feighan, 

Twentieth Congressional District of Ohio, report to accompany 

H.Res. 324, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1252 (Washington: GPO, 

1949); and “Election Contests Dismissed,” p. 11294.

28 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relative 

to the Contested Election Cases of Browner Against Cunningham, Fifth 

Congressional District of Iowa; Fuller Against Davies, Th irty-Fifth 

Congressional District of New York; and Th ierry Against Feighan, 

Twentieth Congressional District of Ohio, report to accompany 

H.Res. 324, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1252 (Washington: GPO, 

1949); and “Election Contests Dismissed,” p. 11294.

29 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election 

Contest Case of W. Kingsland Macy, Contestant, Versus Ernest Greenwood, Contestee, First Congressional District of the State of New York,

report to accompany H.Res. 580, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 

1599 (Washington: GPO, 1952); and “Hon. Ernest Greenwood,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 98, Mar. 19, 1952, p. 2517.

30 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Contest Case of Raymond W. Karst, Contestant, Against Th omas 

B. Curtis, Contestee, Twelfth Congressional District of the State of 

Missouri, report to accompany H.Res. 399, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 905 (Washington: GPO, 1951); and “Election Contest 

Case of Raymond W. Karst, Contestant, Against Th omas B. Curtis, 

Contestee,” Congressional Record, vol. 97, Aug. 21, 1951, p. 10479.

31 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election 

Contest Case of Walter B. Huber, Contestant, Against William H. 

Ayres, Contestee, Fourteenth Congressional District of Ohio, report 

to accompany H.Res. 400, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 906 
144 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

(Washington: GPO, 1951); and “Election Contest Case of Walter 

B. Huber, Contestant, Against William H. Ayres, Contestee,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 97, Aug. 21, 1951, p. 10479.

32 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Contest Case of Wyman C. Lowe, Contestant, Against James C. 

Davis, Contestee, Fifth Congressional District of the State of Georgia,

report to accompany H.Res. 398, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 904 

(Washington: GPO, 1951); and “Election Case of Wyman C. Lowe, 

Contestant, Against James C. Davis, Contestee,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 97, Aug. 21, 1951, p. 10479.

33 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election 

Contest Case of Maurice S. Osser, Contestant, Against Hardie Scott, 

Contestee, Th ird Congressional District of the State of Pennsylvania,

report to accompany H.Res. 579, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 1598 

(Washington: GPO, 1952); and “Hon. Hardie Scott,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 98, Mar. 19, 1952, p. 2517.

34 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearings, 85th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 5, 1957, Congressional 

Information Service, Inc, IS-No: 85 HAD-T.47), Feb. 11, 1957 

(Congressional Information Service, Inc, IS-No: 85 HAD–3), and 

Mar. 11, 1967(Congressional Information Service, Inc, IS-No: 

85 HAD–T54); and “Declaring that an Unsigned Paper is Not a 

Proper Instrument With Which Notice Could Be Given to Contest 

the Seat of the Returned Member From the Sixth Congressional 

District of Iowa,” Congressional Record, vol. 103, Apr. 11, 1957, pp. 

5501–5502.

35 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Contest Case of Steven V. Carter, Contestant, Versus, Karl M. 

LeCompte, Contestee, Fourth Congressional District of the State 

of Iowa, report to accompany H.Res. 533, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H.Rept. 1626 (Washington: GPO, 1958); and “Contested Election 

Case of Carter v. LeCompte,” Congressional Record, vol. 104, June 

17, 1958, pp. 11512–11517.

36 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election 

Contest Case of James C. Oliver, Contestant, Versus Robert Hale, 

Contestee, First Congressional District of the State of Maine, report to 

accompany H.Res. 676, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 2482 (Washington: GPO, 1958); and “Election of Robert Hale,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 104, Aug. 12, 1958, p. 17119.

37 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Investigation of Question of Final Right of Dale Alford to a Seat in the 86th 

Congress, report to accompany H.Res. 380 (86th Cong., 1st sess.), 

86th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 1172 (Washington: GPO, 1959); and 

“Hon. Dale Alford Duly Elected to the 86th Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 105, Sept. 8, 1959, pp. 18610–18611.

38 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election 

Contest Case of Elmo J. Mahoney, Contestant, Versus Wint Smith, 

Sixth Congressional District of the State of Kansas, report to accompany H.Res. 482, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 1409 (Washington: 

GPO, 1960); and “Contested Election Case of Mahoney Against 

Smith,” Congressional Record, vol. 106, Mar. 24, 1960, p. 6523.

39 U.S. Congress, House, In the Matter of the Election of a Representative in Congress From the 22nd Congressional District of the State 

of Illinois, H. Doc. 123, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1959); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Calendar of Business, 86th Congress, Final Calendar (Washington: 

GPO, 1960), p. 30.

40 U.S. Congress, House, In the Matter of the Election of a Representative in the 86th Congress From the 12th Congressional District 

of the State of North Carolina, H. Doc. 450, 86th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 1960); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Calendar of Business, 86th Congress, Final Calendar 

(Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 31.

41 “Hon. Morgan M. Molder,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Jan. 

3, 1961, p. 24–25.

42 “Hon. Victor Wickersham,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Jan. 

3, 1961, p. 25.

43 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

Pursuant to H.Res. 1, A Resolution Directing an Investigation of the 

Question of the Right of J. Edward Roush or George O. Chambers, 

From the Fifth Congressional District of Indiana, to a Seat in the 

Eighty-Seventh Congress. Examination and Recount of the Votes Cast 

for Representative in Congress, Fifth Congressional District of Indiana, 

at the General Election of November 8, 1960. Counties of Blackford, 

Clinton, Grant, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Miami, Tipton, 

Wabash, 2 vols., 97th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 513 (Washington: 

GPO, 1961); “Question of Contested Election in the Fifth Congressional District, Indiana,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Jan. 

3, 1961, pp. 23–24; and “Contested Election—J. Edward Roush 

Against George O. Chambers,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, June 

13, 1961, p. 10160, and June 14, 1961, pp. 10377–10391.

44 U.S. Congress, House, Contested Election, Sixth District of Minnesota, H. Doc. 62, 88th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1963); and 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Calendar of Business, 88th Congress, Final Calendar (Washington: GPO, 1964), p. 32.

45 “Ottinger Objection Explained,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, 

Jan. 4, 1965, pp. 41–45; and “Dismissal of Contest of Election of 

Richard L. Ottinger,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, Jan. 19, 1965, 

pp. 951–957. See also: letter from the Assistant Clerk of the House 

to the Speaker, on procedures for initiating contested elections in 

the House. “Th e Honorable Richard L. Ottinger,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 111, Jan. 18, 1965, pp. 810–811.

46 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Five Mississippi Election Contests and Declaring the Returning 

Members Are Duly Entitled to Th eir Seats in the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.Res. 585, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 

1008 (Washington: GPO, 1965); and “Dismissing the Five Mississippi Election Contests and Declaring the Returning Members 

are Duly Entitled to Th eir Seats in the House of Representatives,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 111, Sept. 17, 1965, pp. 24263–24291.
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 145

47 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest of Stephen M. Peterson, Contestant, Against 

H.R. Gross, Contestee, report to accompany H.Res. 602, 89th Cong., 

1st sess., H.Rept. 1127 (Washington: GPO, 1965); and “Dismissing 

Election Contest Against Gross,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, 

Oct. 11, 1965, pp. 26499–26504.

48 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Contested 

Election Case of James A. Mackay, Contestant, Against Benjamin B. 

Blackburn, Contestee, Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, report 

to accompany H.Res. 542, 90th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 366 (Washington: GPO, 1967); “Hon. Benjamin B. Blackburn,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 113, Jan. 10, 1967, p. 27; and “Contested Election Case 

of James A. Mackay, Contestant, Against Benjamin B. Blackburn, 

Contestee, Fourth Congressional District of Georgia,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 113, July 11, 1967, pp. 18291–18292.

49 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Contested Election Case of Wyman C. Lowe, Contestant, 

Against Fletcher Th ompson, Contestee, Fifth Congressional District 

of Georgia, and Denying Petition of Wyman C. Lowe Relative to the 

General Election on November 8, 1966, In Said District and State,

report to accompany H.Res. 541, 90th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 365 

(Washington: GPO, 1967); and “Dismissing the Contested Election 

Case of Wyman C. Lowe, Contestant, Against Fletcher Th ompson, 

Contestee, Fifth Congressional District of Georgia, and Denying Petition of Wyman C. Lowe Relative to the General Election 

on November 8, 1966, In Said District and State,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 113, July 11, 1967, pp. 18290–18291.

50 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Contested Election Case of Wyman C. Lowe, Contestant, 

Against Fletcher Th ompson, Contestee, Fifth Congressional District 

of Georgia, report to accompany H.Res. 364, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 91-157 (Washington: GPO, 1969); and “Dismissing the 

Contested Election Case of Wyman C. Lowe, Contestant, Against 

Fletcher Th ompson, Contestee, Fifth Congressional District of 

Georgia,” Congressional Record, vol. 115, Apr. 23, 1969, pp. 10010–

10041.

51 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest in the Th irty-Eighth Congressional District of 

California, report to accompany H.Res. 507, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 92-626 (Washington: GPO, 1971); and “Dismissing the 

Contested Election Contest in the Th irty-Eighth Congressional 

District of California,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, Nov. 9, 1971, 

p. 40017.

52 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Speaker to Administer the Oath of Offi ce to William S. 

Conover II and Referring the Question of His Final Right to a Seat in 

the 92nd Congress to the Committee on House Administration, report 

to accompany H.Res. 986, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 93-1090 

(Washington: GPO, 1967); and “Hon. William S. Conover II,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 118, May 24, 1972, p. 18654.

53 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to an Election Contest in the Tenth Congressional District of the State 

of Illinois, report to accompany H.Res. 894, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 94-759 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and “Dismissal of the 

Election Contest of Samuel H. Young,” Congressional Record, vol. 

121, Dec. 19, 1975, pp. 41868–41869.

54 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to an Election Contest in the First Congressional District of the State 

of Maine, report to accompany H.Res. 895, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 94-760 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and “Dismissal of 

Election Contest of Peter N. Kyros,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, 

Dec. 19, 1975, p. 41869.

55 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to an Election Contest in the Fortieth Congressional District of the 

State of California, report to accompany H.Res. 896, 94th Cong., 1st

sess., H.Rept. 94-761 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and “Dismissal 

of Election Contest of Roderick J. Wilson,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 121, Dec. 19, 1975, p. 41869.

56 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to an Election Contest in the Twenty-First Congressional District of 

the State of Ohio, report to accompany H.Res. 897, 94th Cong., 1st

sess., H.Rept. 94-762 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and “Dismissal 

of Election Contest of William (Bill) Mack,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 121, Dec. 19, 1975, p. 41869.

57 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to an Election Contest in the Th ird Congressional District of the State 

of Nebraska, report to accompany H.Res. 898, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 94-763 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and “Dismissal of 

Election of Wayne Ziebarth,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Dec. 

19, 1975, p. 41869.

58 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Richard Kelly, report to accompany 

H.Res. 525, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-242 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Richard Kelly,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, May 9, 1977, p. 13953. 

59 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Bob Gammage, report to accompany H.Res. 526, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-243 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against 

Bob Gammage,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, May 9, 1977, pp. 

13954–13957.

60 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Abner J. Mikva, report to accompany 

H.Res. 527, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-244 (Washington: GPO, 

1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Abner J. Mikva,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 123, May 9, 1977, pp. 13957–13960.

61 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Carl D. Pursell, report to accompany H.Res. 528, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-245 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against 
146 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Carl D. Pursell,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, May 9, 1977, pp. 

13961–13962.

62 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Albert Dehr, report to accompany 

H.Res. 770, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-654 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Albert 

Dehr,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Oct. 27, 1977, pp. 35407–

35408.

63 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest of Elsa Debra Hill and Felix J. Panasigui 

Against William Clay, report to accompany H.Res. 822, 95th Cong., 

1st sess., H.Rept. 95-723 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest of Elsa Debra Hill and Felix J. Panasigui 

Against William Clay,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Oct. 27, 

1977, p. 35408.

64 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against W. Wyche Fowler, Jr., report 

to accompany H.Res. 825, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-724 

(Washington: GPO, 1977).

65 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against W. Wyche Fowler, Jr., report 

to accompany H.Res. 825, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-724 

(Washington: GPO, 1977); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Against W. Wyche Fowler,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Oct. 

27, 1977, p. 35408.

66 Moreau v. Tonry, 339 So. 2d 3, 5 (La. 1976), rev’d, 338 So. 2d 

791 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1976).

67 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Beverly Byron, report to accompany 

H.Res. 189, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 96-78 (Washington: 

GPO, 1979); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Beverly Byron,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, Mar. 29, 1979, pp. 

6832–6833.

68 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Parren J. Mitchell, report to accompany H.Res. 198, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 96-226 (Washington: GPO, 1979); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against 

Parren J. Mitchell,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, June 12, 1979, 

pp. 14457-14458.

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Bennett M. Stewart, report 

to accompany H.Res. 344, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 96-316 

(Washington: GPO, 1979); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Against Bennett M. Stewart,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, June 

28, 1979, pp. 17225–17226.

70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Anthony Claude Leach, Jr., report 

to accompany H.Res. 575, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 96-784 

(Washington: GPO, 1980); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Against Anthony Claude Leach, Jr.,” Congressional Record, vol. 126, 

Mar. 4, 1980, pp. 4491–4498.

71 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Th omas Daschle, report to accompany H.Res. 576, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 96-785 (Washington: GPO, 1980); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against 

Th omas Daschle,” Congressional Record, vol. 126, Mar. 4, 1980, 

pp. 4490–4491

72 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Ron Packard, report to accompany 

H.Res. 305, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 98-452 (Washington: 

GPO, 1983); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Ron 

Packard,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, Nov. 15, 1983, pp. 32704–

32705.

73 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against James McClure Clarke, report 

to accompany H.Res. 304, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 96- 453 

(Washington: GPO, 1983); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Against James McClure Clarke,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, 

Nov. 15, 1983, pp. 32702–32704.

74 CQ Almanac, 99th Congress, 1st Session, 1985 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1986), p. 28.

75 See for example, Tony Blankley, “Breaking the Partisan Fever,” 

Washington Times, Nov. 28, 2011, Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/28/breaking-the-partisan-fever/. 

Accessed May 22, 2012; Remarks of former Rep. David Skaggs, 

quoted in E.J. Dionne, “Bush Missed a Chance to Make Peace,” 

San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 20, 2000, p. A19.

76 U..S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to Election of a Representative From the Eighth Congressional District 

of Indiana, report to accompany H.Res. 146, 99th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 99-58 (Washington: GPO, 1985).

77 “Swearing in of Members,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Jan. 

3, 1985, p. 380.

78 H.Res. 1, 99th Congress.

79 “Referring Election of a Member From the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana to the Committee on House Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381.

80 Ibid., p. 382.

81 CQ Almanac, 99th Congress, 1st Session, 1985 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1986), p. 28.

82 H.Res. 52, 99th Congress.

83 “Privileges of the House—Resolution to Seat Richard D. 

McIntyre as a Member of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 

131, Feb. 7, 1985, pp. 2220–2231.

84 CQ Almanac, 99th Congress, 1st Session, 1985 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1986), p. 29.
CONTESTED HOUSE ELECTIONS 147

85 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to Election of a Representative From the Eighth Congressional District 

of Indiana, report to accompany H.Res. 146, 99th Cong., 1st sess., 

H.Rept. 99-58 (Washington: GPO, 1985), p. 13.

86 Ibid., p. 13.

87 Ibid., Appendix., p. 27.

88 Ibid.

89 H.Res. 97, 99th Congress.

90 CQ Almanac, 99th Congress, 1st Session, 1985 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1986), p. 29.

91 “Privileges of the House Resolution to Seat Richard D. 

McIntyre,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4289.

92 H.Res. 121, 99th Congress.

93 “Privilege of the House—Resolution to Seat Richard D. 

McIntyre,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Apr.. 2, 1985, p. 7129.

94 CQ Almanac, 99th Congress, 1st Session, 1985 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1986), p. 29.

95 Th e Task Force considered and rejected the option of voiding 

the election. U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Relating to Election of a Representative From the Eighth Congressional 

District of Indiana, report to accompany H.Res. 146, 99th Cong., 1st

sess., H.Rept. 99-58 (Washington: GPO, 1985).

96 Since renamed the Government Accountability Offi ce.

97 “Referring Election of a Member From the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana to the Committee on House Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, Jan. 3, 1985, pp. 381–388; 

and “Relating to Election of a Representative From the Eighth 

Congressional District of Indiana,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, 

May 1, 1985, pp. 9998–10019.

98 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Ben Blaz, report to accompany 

H.Res. 229, 99th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 99-220 (Washington: 

GPO, 1985); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Ben 

Blaz,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, July 24, 1985, pp. 20180–

20181.

99 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Richard Howard Stallings, report 

to accompany H.Res. 272, 99th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 99-290 

(Washington: GPO, 1985); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Against Richard Howard Stallings,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, 

Oct. 2, 1985, pp. 25664–25670.

100 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Jay Dickey, report to accompany 

H.Res. 182, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 103-109 (Washington: 

GPO, 1993); and “Public Bills and Resolutions (H.Res. 182, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Jay Dickey), Congressional 

Record, vol. 139, May 25, 1993, p. 11090.

101 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Dismissing the 

Election Contest Against Charlie Rose, report to accompany H.Res. 

538, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-852 (Washington: GPO, 

1996); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Charlie Rose,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 142, Sept. 26, 1996, pp. 25242–25243.

102 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Dismissing the 

Election Contest Against Charles Bass, report to accompany H.Res. 

539, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-853 (Washington: GPO, 

1996); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Charles Bass,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 142, Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25243.

103 “Munster Versus Gejdenson,” Congressional Record, Daily 

Digest, vol. 141, Mar. 23, 1995, p. D405.

104 “Brooks Versus Harman,” Congressional Record, Daily Digest, 

vol. 141, May 9, 1995, p. D569.

105 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, report to 

accompany H.Res. 355, Dismissing the Election Against Loretta 

Sanchez, H.Rept. 105-416, 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, 

GPO: 1998).

106 Quote is found in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Oversight, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Loretta Sanchez,

Report to Accompany H. Res. 355, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

105-416 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 15–16. See also: “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Loretta Sanchez,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 144, Feb. 12, 1998, pp. 1323–1324.

107 “Dismissing the Election Contest Against Loretta Sanchez,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 144, Feb. 12, 1998, pp. 1323–1324.

108 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Ed Case, report to accompany H.Res. 

317, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-207 (Washington: GPO, 

2003); and “Resolution Dismissing Election Contest Against Ed 

Case,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, July 15, 2003, 

pp. H6710–H6711

109 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Against Bart Gordon, report to accompany 

H.Res. 318, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-208 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003); and “Resolution Dismissing Election Contest Against 

Bart Gordon,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, July 15, 

2003, p. H6711.

110 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest of the Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee,

report to accompany H.Res. 239, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 

109-57 (Washington: GPO, 2005); and “Dismissing the Election 

Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From the Sixth 

Congressional District of Tennessee,” Congressional Record, daily 

edition, vol. 151, Apr. 27, 2005, pp. H2576-H2577.

111 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From 

the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana, report to accompany 

H.Res. 462, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-177 (Washington: 
148 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

GPO, 2007); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the 

Offi ce of Representative From the Fourth Congressional District of 

Louisiana,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 12, 

2007, p. H6246.

112 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From 

the Th irteenth Congressional District of Florida, report to accompany 

H. Res. 989, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-528, parts 1-3 

(Washington: GPO, 2008); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From the Th irteenth Congressional District of Florida,” Congressional Record, daily edition, 

vol. 154, Feb. 25, 2008, pp. H1016–H1017.

113 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative 

From the Twenty-First Congressional District of Florida, report to 

accompany H.Res. 459, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-175 

(Washington: GPO, 2007); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From the Twenty-First 

Congressional District of Florida,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 12, 2007, pp. H6246.

114 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative 

From the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District of Florida, report 

to accompany H.Res. 176, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-176 

(Washington: GPO, 2007); and “Dismissing the Election Contest 

Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From the Twenty-Fourth 

Congressional District of Florida,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 12, 2007, pp. H6246.

115 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to the Offi ce of Representative From 

the Fifth Congressional District of Florida, report to accompany 

H.Res. 463, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-178 (Washington: 

GPO, 2007); and “Dismissing the Election Contest Relating to 

the Offi ce of Representative From the Fifth Congressional District 

of Florida,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 12, 

2007, pp. H6246.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 149

V II. BEHI ND T HE SCENE S: 

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

During the last seven decades, the House has become increasingly institutionalized.1

 Th e Committee on House Administration, as well as numerous task forces and commissions,2

have examined internal operations, which have regularly been 

modifi ed through revisions to House Rules, statutes, and 

operational procedures. Th ese changes have led to increased 

professionalization of the administrative and support functions of the House. 

Th e Committee has helped implement this modernization. Its work strikes at the heart of the “internal housekeeping” operation of the House and enables the House to 

function smoothly. In providing oversight of offi cial House 

resources, the Committee has had to balance the needs of a 

complex legislative body, a traditional deference to the independence of Members to represent their constituents in the 

manner they deem most appropriate, and ensuring accountability to Members and the American public. 

Th e administrative structure promulgated or overseen by 

the Committee guides how every Member, committee, and 

House offi cer conducts business each day. Th rough its consideration of committee funding resolutions and its regulation of Member allowances, the Committee makes decisions 

regarding the allocation of resources for these offi ces. It also 

has established and revised other guidelines for such offi ce 

operations as staffi ng, travel, mail, and offi ce space. Eff orts to 

standardize the administrative and fi nancial operations of the 

House, initially through the Committee’s direct involvement 

in these activities, and then through oversight of appointed 

and elected House offi cers, have transformed a system based 

on patronage to one based on merit. Th e Committee reviews 

projects, policies, and other initiatives of these offi cers, as well 

as proposed reorganizations. 

It has also worked to guide the House through the constantly changing technological landscape, considering what 

tools may be most useful to the chamber and weighing the 

desire of offi ces for the discretion to purchase the supplies 

they need while ensuring the best investment for the House 

and some level of standardization and compatibility. Th is 

has involved assisting the House with the transformation to 

the digital age, overseeing the installation and maintenance 

of the electronic voting system, and improving public access 

through the televised broadcast of fl oor debate and many 

committee hearings. 

The Committee has also overseen the business-like 

operations of the House, including restaurants and barber 

and beauty shops, as well as other services to the congressional community, such as parking and administration of 

the offi ce buildings, the Capitol, and the Capitol Visitor 

Center. Th e Committee has paid particular attention to 

services and benefi ts for Members, as well as preserving the 

institutional memory of the House through its historical 

artwork collection. 

Funding Accounts and Staffi ng for Members 

and Committees: Overview and Development, 

Committee Funding Resolutions

Origins and Development 

Prior to the creation of the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Accounts (1803–1946) considered numerous funding requests from House committees. 

In 1945, for example, it reported more than 30 resolutions 

dealing with expenses for studies and investigations and other 

specifi c committee related expenses, including requests for 

additional staff . Th e approval of investigations was a two 

part process. Initially, the investigation had to be authorized 

by a resolution reported by the Rules Committee. A second 

resolution, reported by the Accounts Committee, contained 
150 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the maximum amount available to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House, and some specifi ed the purpose 

of the expenditures.

Signifi cance and Current Practice

Th e process of funding and staffi ng committees has evolved 

continuously since the establishment of the Committee on 

House Administration. Because committees are so integral to 

the operation of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s jurisdiction in this area has allowed it to exert infl uence in 

many areas and placed it at the center of a number of political 

battles. Th ese include questions as to the proper role of Congress in investigations; the appropriate division of resources 

between the majority and minority parties, as well as between 

committees and subcommittees; and eff orts to control spending and promote transparency in the legislative branch.

Th e Committee calls for each committee under its purview—currently all standing and select committees with the 

exception of the Committee on Appropriations—to off er a 

single resolution proposing its funding level for each session 

of a Congress. Th is resolution is referred to the Committee, 

which then holds hearings during which the Chair and Ranking Minority Member from each committee are invited to 

testify on behalf of their budget request. In accordance with 

House Rule X, clauses 6 and 7, the Committee then develops 

an omnibus resolution covering funding for these committees. Th e Committee need not use a formula in determining 

the allocation for each committee, but rather has discretion to consider committee size and workload, the goals and 

priorities of the House, and the overall fi scal climate. For 

example, the Committee report on the funding resolution 

for the 110th Congress states that, because of the enactment 

of a year-long continuing resolution, and “with the limited 

resources available, the Committee was only able to recommend across-the-board infl ationary adjustments of 2.64% for 

the personnel expenses, and 2.2% for the operating expenses 

in the fi rst session, and 3.0% for the personnel expenses, 

and 2.4% for the operating expenses in the second session,” 

although the Armed Services Committee received additional 

funding because it “bears an especially heavy burden” during 

a time of war.3

 Th e resolutions are then considered for adoption by the House, with funding provided annually through 

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Acts.

Procedural Evolution and Jurisdiction

Th e Committee has considered committee funding requests 

since its inception under authority currently given to it in 

House Rule X. Prior to the elimination of the Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Accounts at the outset of the 104th Congress, many issues related to committee expenditures were 

handled by that subcommittee. 

Th e Committee’s jurisdiction over expenditures from 

House accounts was challenged during the 89th Congress 

(1965–1966) when Rules Committee Chairman Howard 

W. Smith of Virginia reported resolutions authorizing certain 

committees to conduct studies and investigations. At this 

time, the House fi rst agreed to a resolution, reported by the 

Rules Committee, authorizing the investigation, and then 

considered funding for the investigation in a separate resolution, reported by the Committee on House Administration. 

Th is two-part process was required for the allocation of investigative funds until the Committee Reform Amendments 

of 1974 granted all committees the authority to conduct 

investigations and studies.4

In 1965, however, the Rules Committee attempted to 

alter this process by containing new language in committee 

amendments to its authorizing resolutions limiting expenditures from what was then-known as the contingent fund. 

Th e Committee on House Administration contested what it 

deemed a violation of its jurisdiction. In a resolution adopted 

by the Committee in late January and transmitted to the 

Rules Committee, the former insisted upon its jurisdiction 

over expenditures.5

Debate continued during the February 1965 fl oor consideration of Rules Committee Chairman Howard Smith’s 

resolutions. Smith argued that the Rules Committee “thought 

there ought to be some limitation by way of authorization on 

the funds that were being used by these various and sundry 

committees” but admitted he faced resistance from various 

committee chairmen as well as the Committee on House 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 151

Administration.6 After noting that the Rules Committee had 

agreed to strike its language concerning funding in light of 

this opposition, Smith decried what he saw as a rapid rise in 

the cost of investigations and said that the members of the 

Rules Committee “express the hope that somewhere along 

the line somebody may pay a little attention to the amount 

of expenditures for this purpose.”7

Th e Committee on House Administration succeeded in 

protecting its jurisdiction, and to assure that it would be able 

to continue to do so, directed, in a compilation of Committee 

procedures, that: 

Th e clerk of the subcommittee on accounts should 

maintain vigilance over any and all items in the 

Congressional Record pertaining to action of the 

Rules Committee in connection with legislation of 

interest to the Committee on House Administration as it aff ects Members and committees of the 

House. Items pertaining to foreign travel, authorization of special and select committees, etc., aff ect 

the House Administration Committee’s administrative surveillance over committees, expenditures, 

employees, etc., in the House of Representatives.8

Until 1970, the Committee adopted its own procedures 

for considering the many expense resolutions. Procedures 

noted in a compilation of Committee regulations for the 

91st Congress and revised on January 1, 1970, noted that the 

Committee requested resolutions contain the eff ective date 

of January 3 so that funds would be available retroactively. 

Chairmen requiring funds were also told to address their 

concerns in writing to the Chairman of the Committee and 

request a hearing. Th e Committee stated its preference to hear 

from both the majority and minority sides at the hearing. 

Committees receiving funds were then required to submit 

to the Committee monthly reports detailing progress in the 

studies and investigations for which funds were approved, a 

statement of expenses, a report of travel, a list of committee 

employees and their salaries, and a projected program for the 

following month.9

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which 

became law in October of that year, formalized the funding 

process and placed it within the rules of the House.10 It also 

imposed new requirements on standing committees desiring 

funds by establishing a new method to provide Members 

with basic information about the funds requested by each 

standing committee and a specifi ed amount of time to study 

that information before voting on those funds. Each report 

was required to specify the total amount of funds and the 

amounts for each committee activity. Additional expense 

resolutions were to be subject to the same demands, with 

the added requirement of a statement containing the reasons 

for the failure to request these funds in the primary expense 

resolution.

In recent Congresses, the Committee has reported one 

annual omnibus primary expense resolution for most or 

all committees within its jurisdiction. It formerly reported 

separate resolutions to the House authorizing funds for each 

committee. Each resolution was considered and agreed to 

individually. Th is process changed, when, upon the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Accounts, the Committee reported a consolidated committee funding resolution 

(H. Res. 115), on March 23, 1981. Th e resolution was agreed 

to by the House on March 25 by a vote of 231 to 171.11 Th is 

consolidated approach is still utilized, although it was not 

immediately embraced by the minority members of the Committee. In the report accompanying H. Res. 115, the minority 

members stated:

In the past, the House has considered each committee’s funding resolution separately on the fl oor. 

Although rarely was it permissible to off er amendments, there was always the opportunity to debate 

the merits of each funding resolution and vote on 

each one individually. . . . Now we are confronted 

with a new procedure designed to prevent careful Congressional scrutiny of each Committee’s 

budget. All the funding resolutions have been 

conveniently grouped into one omnibus resolution. Whatever debate time will be provided will 
152 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

be limited at best. Th e intent is to make the whole 

package carry the big-spending Committee budgets—Rules, Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Energy 

and Commerce—each of which might fail in an 

isolated vote. . . . Th is procedure is another form of 

‘gag-rule,’ ill-suited to careful deliberation. It only 

hampers the responsible exercise of our legislative 

duties. We hope and expect that the House would 

reject this departure from traditional practice.12

Since 1995, committees of the House other than the 

Appropriations Committee have been funded on a biennial 

basis. Previously, the Committee had considered authorizations on a one year basis since at least 1963. During a heated 

fl oor debate on February 27, 1963, on the cost and sharing of 

committee funds, Representative Gerald Ford of Michigan 

stated: 

I think it is a great step forward for the Committee 

to have decided that all committees of the House 

should have only 1-year appropriations. Th is means 

that a year from now your committee can take an 

honest look to see whether progress has been made, 

whether agreements have been abided by; and if 

they have not then the House in its wisdom can 

take what action is necessary to remedy any violation of agreements or action which was not in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.13

On March 6, 1963, the Committee’s Ranking Minority 

Member Paul Schenck further clarifi ed his understanding 

of the change and the fi scal discipline he thought it would 

encourage, explaining that: 

When I fi rst suggested to our chairman . . . the idea 

of making these appropriations for 1 year . . . my 

purpose was to give the Committee on House 

Administration an opportunity . . . to review the 

expenditures and the work done by the various 

committees each year and to thus establish better control over these expenditures. Th is was not 

intended . . . as an invitation to come back to the 

House Committee on Administration for more 

funds; neither was it our intention to develop studies which would take extensive time and money for 

staff , and then come to our committee later and say, 

we have only partially completed our investigation 

and we will need additional funds to complete our 

unfi nished work.14

Th ree decades later, the House reevaluated the best manner to achieve fi scal control of committee expenditures, and a 

change to biennial funding was instituted with the adoption 

of the Rules for the 104th Congress (1995–1996) in an eff ort 

“to permit committee[s] to plan for a full Congress and to 

free-up the time otherwise consumed by the House and its 

committees on processing two budgets per Congress.”15 In 

making this switch, the House joined the Senate, which had 

agreed to its own biennial funding procedure in 1988.16

Exemption for the Committee on Appropriations

The exemption of the House Committee on Appropriations from the regular funding process was fi rst proposed in 

1946. Th at year, the Joint Committee on the Organization 

of Congress (JCOC) submitted a number of suggestions to 

Congress, including a plan for the reorganization of committees, changes in committee procedure, and modifi cations to congressional staffi ng levels and procedures. In a 

section off ering suggestions to strengthen fi scal control, the 

JCOC stated its belief that “the work of the Appropriations 

Committee is so vital that they should be the best equipped 

of any committees of the Congress, for on their judgment 

hangs the expenditure of billions of public money.”17 It noted 

that the entire House Appropriations Committee had eight 

clerks, while the Senate Appropriations Committee had 

nine. It recommended that “four qualifi ed staff assistants 

be assigned to each of the appropriation subcommittees 

to serve both the majority and minority members.”18 Th is 

allocation stood in contrast to that of other committees, 

for which the JCOC recommended a limit of four professional and six clerical staff .19 In support of this diff erence, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 153

the JCOC declared that “there is little hope for carefully 

considered reductions in appropriations without defi nite 

and fundamental improvements in both House and Senate 

Appropriations Committee procedures and practices.”20 Th e 

report noted the semi-autonomous nature of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees and argued that the 

full committee did not examine the bills reported from the 

subcommittees with enough scrutiny, and that too much of 

the consideration was conducted in secret sessions.

When the recommendations were considered in the 

House on July 25, 1946, Clarence Cannon of Missouri 

off ered an amendment authorizing the Committee on Appropriations to conduct studies and investigations and appoint 

staff as it deemed necessary.21 Th ese actions were to be subject 

only to appropriations included in the appropriations bills. 

Speaking in support of the amendment, Cannon said that the 

Appropriations Committee had saved money since it began 

operating under this system in 1943. Th e amendment was 

agreed to and incorporated into the Legislative Reorganization Act, which passed on August 2nd of that year. Th e Act 

authorized clerks for other standing committees at the level 

recommended by JCOC.22

Th e House Appropriations Committee has since maintained its exemption through subsequent amendments to the 

funding process. Th e Budget Committee was provided with a 

similar exemption from its creation under the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 until it, too, was included in the regular 

funding process with the revision of the Rules at the start of 

the 104th Congress (1995–1996).23

Transparency and Accountability

An ongoing debate over the justification of committee 

expenses has centered both on the cost of committee operations and the transparency of the funding process. Over the 

years, some critics have highlighted some of the more complex 

features of the process, which they claimed had the eff ect of 

obscuring the true cost of committees. Others have attempted 

to compare costs across committees and congresses.

Some of the early confusion surrounding the funding process stemmed from a provision in the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1946 guaranteeing each committee a certain number 

of staff .24 Th is level of staff was expanded through subsequent 

acts, and prior to the 104th Congress, committees did not have 

to request separate funds for these staff in their primary expense 

resolution. Th e primary expense resolutions before 1995 also 

did not have to include certain additional non-staff expenses, 

such as the costs of offi cial committee mail, supplies, computer 

service charges, and other administrative costs. Th e perceived 

lack of committee accountability for these funds had been noted 

as a concern by the then-Republican minority during funding 

consideration more than a decade earlier.25 Th e rules adopted 

for the 104th Congress eliminated distinctions between statutory 

and investigative staff and required that certain other committee 

expenses be included in the expense resolutions in an eff ort to 

increase transparency. Th e new procedure was explained in the 

report accompanying the resolution, H. Res. 107, that provided 

for committee expenses for the 104th Congress. Th e report also 

noted that in the previous Congress “committees were funded 

from three sources” and “almost 55% of these committee funds 

were not subject to an annual, public authorization process.”26

Prior to the rules change, the split was recognized in the 

annual legislative branch appropriations acts. Th e FY1995 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, for example, contained separate appropriations accounts for both “committee 

employees” and salaries and expenses of “standing committees, special and select” as authorized by the House.27 Since 

the changes in House Rules adopted for the 104th Congress, 

these accounts have been combined, and beginning with the 

FY1996 Act there has been one account for employees of 

“standing committees, special and select.”28

Eff orts to Control Costs

Since its establishment, the Committee has had to weigh 

the needs of the various committees while ensuring a costeff ective operation for Congress and the nation. One way the 

Committee attempted to control costs and exert infl uence 

over spending began during the 88th Congress (1963–1964), 

when it included a provision prohibiting in the individual 

expense resolutions the expenditure of any authorized funds 

for a study or investigation in which the same subject was 
154 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

already being examined by another committee. Th e provision also required each committee chairman to report to 

the Committee before initiating any study or investigation. 

Subcommittee on Accounts Chairman Samuel Friedel told 

the House that this section of the resolution was included “in 

order to avoid duplication and confl ict of jurisdiction with 

other committees.”29 Similar provisions were included in 

many subsequent funding resolutions until 1982.

Th e Committee has also attempted to use its power to 

control committee costs, both overseeing the use of funds by 

other committees and leading by example through its own 

budget request. For example, in the report accompanying its 

omnibus resolution for the fi rst session of the 97th Congress 

(1981–1982), the Committee recommended dramatically 

cutting its own funding by requesting an investigative budget that was 20% lower than the amount expended, and 

30% lower than the 1980 authorization.30 It also sought to 

achieve savings by eliminating the Subcommittee on Libraries 

and Memorials, combining the two separate subcommittees 

overseeing contracts and printing into a single panel, reducing 

the number of staff and consultants, and limiting the amount 

spent on the House Information System. Th e Committee also 

indicated in its report that overall committee funding for the 

session was more than $1 million less than that approved by 

the House the previous year, and more than $4.5 million 

less than requested.31 Although during its consideration the 

Committee had voted in a roll call vote of 8 to 10 against an 

amendment “to reduce the resolutions by 10 percent of the 

amount Committees expended in 1980,” a fl oor amendment 

off ered by Majority Leader Jim Wright to reduce aggregate 

levels to 10% below the previous year authorization levels 

was agreed to on March 25, 1981.32 A motion to recommit with instructions to include further cuts, off ered by the 

Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Bill Frenzel, was 

subsequently defeated.33

Little more than a decade later, the Republican majority 

in the 104th Congress vowed to fulfi ll a campaign pledge to 

cut one-third of committee staff positions. Some committee 

chairmen, however, defended the roles of their committees in 

the legislative process and advocated the need for some budget 

increases. Committee funding resolution levels continued to 

be a topic of intense debate in subsequent Congresses.34

Further overall cuts were adopted at the start of the 112th

Congress, when the House agreed to H. Res. 22, which stated 

that the authorized primary expenses resolutions for 2011 

and 2012 should not exceed 95% of the amount provided 

for 2009 and 2010. Th e Committee reported a resolution, 

H. Res. 147, on March 9, 2011, that refl ected this direction 

from the House. Following House passage of the FY2012 

appropriation bill (H.R. 2551), which included a 6.4% reduction from the FY2011 level in the appropriation for House 

committees, the Committee held a hearing on November 

30, 2011, to review committee budgets. Chairman Lungren 

introduced another committee funding resolution on December 14, 2011, H. Res. 496, to refl ect the lower appropriations 

level. Th e resolution was considered by the Committee during 

a markup on December 16, 2011, and was agreed to by voice 

vote in the House on February 1, 2012. 

Arguments during these episodes and others demonstrate the ongoing debate over the appropriate balance of 

power between the executive and legislative branches. Members of the House have argued the need for adequate funds 

to support their investigative and oversight work to provide 

a proper check to the executive and investigate threats to the 

nation. Yet Members of the House are sensitive to charges of 

excess and redundancy. Th ey want to show their constituents 

that they appreciate the trust given them by not spending in 

excess, especially in lean fi scal times. Th e episodes also show 

that the managers of the internal operations of the House 

must engage in the same mundane yet crucial tasks of dealing 

with administrative regulations, creating incentives to attract 

and retain experienced staff , distributing limited resources, 

and scrutinizing the requests of colleagues.

Printed Sources on Committee Funding

Th e Committee updates and publishes the Committees’ Congressional Handbook to assist House committees in understanding the funding process, staffi ng limitations, reporting 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 155

requirements imposed on a committee, and rules governing 

reimbursable expenses.

From the 83rd through the 103rd Congress, the Committee regularly listed its actions with regard to committee 

funding within its Committee Calendar in tabular form. 

Th e categories of information included in each of the tables, 

however, evolved over time in response to the changing 

concerns of the Committee and to refl ect new procedures 

or practices stipulated in amendments to the Rules of the 

House. It has variously included resolutions considered by 

the Rules Committee authorizing a committee to conduct 

studies and investigations, the individual committee funding resolution number, the amount requested, authority for 

foreign travel, the House report number, the date reported 

by committee, the date passed by House, the amount authorized by committee, the amount approved by House, and 

the total for each session.35

Interim Funding

House Rules require the chamber to act by March 31 in 

each odd numbered year to provide operating funds for its 

standing and select committees (except for the Appropriations Committee). Th e committees of the House may operate until this date with interim funding automatically provided for in the Rules since the 99th Congress (1985–1986). 

Prior to the adoption of interim funding clause, the House 

regularly agreed to resolutions covering necessary expenses 

of committees from January 3 through March 31 each year. 

Th e Chairman of the Committee often off ered privileged 

resolutions to accomplish this purpose. Although the initial 

interim funding Rule originally provided for nine percent 

of the total annualized amount provided for in the previous session to each applicable committee, reforms agreed 

to in the 100th Congress (1987–1988) gave the Committee on House Administration the authority to set the rate 

of interim funding at a lower percentage, if necessary, to 

comply with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi cit 

Control Act of 1985 or if insuffi cient funds are available.36

It also provided automatic interim funding for the second 

session of each Congress, a need which was then negated 

with the adoption of the biennial funding procedure at the 

outset of the 104th Congress (1995–1996).37 At that time, 

the new Republican majority also temporarily suspended 

automatic interim funding for the 104th Congress in favor 

of permitting only those expenses consistent with its goal of 

reducing the number and cost of committee staff .38 Additionally, the interim period has occasionally expired without 

the passage of a primary expense resolution. In these cases, 

it has been necessary for the Committee to introduce a 

resolution providing for an extension of the interim funding 

for committees.39

Supplemental Resolutions and the Reserve Fund

Under the Rules, House committees that experience unanticipated expenses during a Congress may request supplemental funding through additional expense resolutions. 

For many years, the Committee conducted hearings on 

additional expenses and introduced resolutions providing 

supplemental funding to committees. Committees desiring 

additional funding had to justify their request and explain 

why the funds had not been requested as part of the primary 

expense resolution. 

Changes to House Rules adopted at the outset of the 

105th Congress (1997–1998) established a reserve fund 

which may be distributed among the committees by the 

Committee in the event of unanticipated expenses. Th e primary committee funding resolution for the 105th and 106th

(1999–2000) Congresses contained $7.9 and $3.0 million 

for the reserve fund, respectively.40 Th rough the 109th Congress (2005–2006), no additional money was specifi cally 

designated for this use in primary expense resolutions. Th e 

reserve fund became a political issue, and opponents once 

again traded accusations about transparency and the use of 

certain House funds. 

In the 105th and 106th Congresses, Steny Hoyer of 

Maryland, then a member of the Committee on House 

Oversight, introduced legislation to prohibit any payment 

from the reserve fund without the approval of the House.41

Both resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules, 

although no further action was taken. Th e minority views 
156 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

included in the Committee’s activity report for the 105th

Congress state:42

. . . the temptation to use the new reserve fund, 

as expected, eff ectively short-circuited the supplemental funding process because it allowed committee chairmen to dispense with such inconveniences as consultation with the Democratic 

Minority, hearings, committee reports, and House 

votes. Th e House Oversight Committee approved 

eight reserve fund allocations during the 105th

Congress, with only one supplemental funding 

resolution considered by the Committee and 

adopted in the House.

Division of Funds Between the Majority and 

Minority Parties

Th e Committee also considers the appropriate split of committee funds and staff between the majority and minority 

parties. Guidance in this area is found in House Rule X, 

clauses 6 and 9 of the 110th Congress. Th e House has entertained a number of proposals in this area since the committee’s establishment, and the allocation has occasionally been a 

source of tension between the majority and minority parties.

In 1963, the minority attempted to obtain additional 

staffing and proposed a 60–40 split of committee funds 

between the majority and minority parties. Committee 

Chairman Omar Burleson of Texas responded to the proposal 

on the House fl oor by asking what constituted a minority on 

any given issue. He asserted his belief that the machinations 

were correct but only needed to be “fairly applied.”43 Burleson also inserted a letter from House Judiciary Committee 

Chairman Emanuel Celler to Speaker John W. McCormack 

into the Congressional Record in which he says that this split 

would be against the spirit of the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1946, which called for permanent professional staff 

not appointed or dismissed on the basis of their political 

affi liations. Th e minority’s eff ort to achieve this split failed 

and informal agreements continued to determine allocations 

and other arrangements.

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 reformed 

this process by ensuring that “the minority party on any such 

standing committee is entitled, if they so request, to not less 

than one-third of the funds provided for the appointment of 

committee staff personnel pursuant to each primary or additional expense resolution.”44 In remarks on the fl oor during 

consideration of the multiple committee funding resolutions 

for 1973, Chairman Wayne Hays of Ohio assured the House 

that the Committee had consulted with the minority during 

the hearings and that they were satisfi ed with the results, a 

claim supported by Ranking Minority Member William 

Dickinson of Alabama.45

Subcommittee Funding and Staffi ng

Over the years, the House has considered the appropriate role 

of its subcommittees vis-à-vis full committees. Th e debate has 

included the question of the appropriate allocation of staff 

and other resources. Until the early 1970s, committee chairmen, who then owed their positions of power to the seniority 

system, could largely utilize their subcommittees as they saw 

fi t. Reformers, prompted by a desire to hold these chairmen 

more accountable, moved to redistribute power in the House. 

As David Rohde has argued, “this was partly done by shifting 

power to subcommittees” although these “subcommittees and 

their chairmen were constrained by the new rules imposing 

collective responsibility, just as committee chairmen were.”46 

In 1973, the Subcommittee Bill of Rights approved by 

the Democratic Caucus included provisions requiring fi xed 

jurisdiction of subcommittees, authorizing them to meet and 

report legislation, and calling for each to have an adequate 

budget with subcommittee chairmen selecting all of their 

staff . Th e Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, which 

were subsequently incorporated into the House Rules for the 

94th Congress (1975–1976), formally placed some of these 

goals within the House. Th e reforms authorized standing 

subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members 

to each appoint one staff person to serve at their pleasure.47

Th e new system, and the resulting consequences for 

internal committee relations, did not satisfy all members. 

Seven years after its adoption, Bill Frenzel of Minnesota, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 157

then the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, 

stated that the change “has proved to be a mistake. It has 

fractionalized the staff s and caused much too large staff s.”48

When the Republican majority rewrote the rules at the start 

of the 104th Congress, the guarantee of one staff member 

was replaced with language ensuring “suffi cient staff ” for 

a subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities in an eff ort 

“to reestablish the primacy of committees over subcommittees while maintaining the ability of subcommittees 

to carry out their functions as arms of the parent committee.”49 Regulations in the Committees’ Congressional 

Handbook50—including the requirement that the Committee Chair sign forms for the appointment of committee 

employees and vouchers for reimbursement or payment 

from committee funds—also highlight the authority of 

the Chair over the committee.

Highlights on Debates for Funding of Certain 

Controversial Committees and Chairmen

Th rough its control over the funding of House committees, 

the Committee has occasionally been called upon to exercise 

scrutiny over what was characterized as controversial activities by other committees and their chairmen. Supporters 

and critics of committees have long recognized the funding issue as a means to directly comment on the work of a 

committee and the power of its chairman. Th is was especially the case with: 1) the Committee on Education and 

Labor under Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who was chairman 

from the 87th through 89th Congresses (1961–1966); 2) the 

Banking and Currency Committee under Wright Patman, 

who was chairman from the 88th through 93rd Congresses 

(1963–1974); and 3) the House Un-American Activities 

(later Internal Security) Committee throughout its more 

than three decades of existence.

Funding for the Banking and Currency Committee 

Under Wright Patman. Wright Patman chaired the Banking 

and Currency Committee during the 88th–93rd Congresses 

(1963–1974). He was a vocal critic of many of the practices 

of the fi nancial establishment. Political scientist John Owens 

has noted that the “trepidation” felt by certain members of the 

banking community on his ascension as chairman “seemed 

well justifi ed when, on assuming the chairmanship Patman 

requested additional staff and budget authorizations and 

directed the staff to conduct investigations into diff erent 

aspects of banking practice with a view to introducing legislation.”51 Stating that he didn’t “think there is a committee in 

Congress, House or Senate, that has more potential jurisdiction than we have,” Patman in 1963 requested $530,000 in a 

hearing before the Committee on the funding request of the 

Banking and Currency Committee.52 Th e request represented 

a massive increase from the previous Congress’s authorization 

of $5,000 for general committee investigations and studies, 

and prompted Patman’s colleague and Ranking Minority 

Member, Clarence Kilburn of New York, to question the 

need for the money and the staff it would provide.53 The 

resolution passed on March 6, 1963, after the Committee 

reduced the authorization to $180,000.54 Th e full committee eventually received an authorization to spend $391,268 

during the 88th Congress (1963–1964), while the Housing 

Subcommittee was authorized $311,934.55 Th e committee’s 

request for $950,000 for 1965 was reduced to $225,000 by 

House Administration.56 Th e Committee continued to scrutinize Patman’s requests until he was removed as chairman 

in 1975 as part of a wave of committee changes implemented 

in the 94th Congress.

Funding for the Committee on Education and 

Labor Under Adam Clayton Powell. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. chaired the House Committee on Education and 

Labor from the 87th through 89th Congresses (1961–1966). 

During his tenure, the Committee on House Administration exercised increasing scrutiny over Powell’s handling 

of funds, particularly expenditures related to travel. Th e 

Committee also examined the employment of Y. Marjorie 

Flores, Powell’s wife, who appeared on the clerk-hire rolls 

of Powell’s personal offi ce and the press reported as residing in Puerto Rico. During the March 6, 1963, House 

floor debate on H. Res. 254 to provide funding for the 

studies and investigations to be conducted by this committee, Chairman Wayne Hays referred to the alleged misuse 
158 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

of funds in support of the committee amendment which 

pared the original $697,000 request to $200,000.57 An 

investigation was initiated by the Special Subcommittee on 

Contracts, which reported irregularities in both travel and 

staffi ng.58 In 1967, Powell was stripped of his chairmanship and subsequently excluded from membership in the 

90th Congress (1967–1968) by House Resolution. He was 

subsequently elected by special election to his former seat, 

although he was not sworn in. 

Funding for House Un-American Activities/Internal 

Security Committee. Th e Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda 

and Certain Other Propaganda Activities, a predecessor of 

the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was 

created in 1934.59 Th is committee was followed by the House 

Special Committee on Un-American Activities, which was 

then established as a standing committee with the adoption 

of the rules for the 79th Congress. Its funding was the target 

on the House fl oor of critics like William Ryan of New York, 

who believed the committee was both excessively costly and 

“violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution 

and stifl ing freedom of dissent.”60 Th ese critics, including James 

Roosevelt of California, argued that since they could not obtain 

a vote on a resolution eliminating HUAC because of actions 

of the Rules Committee, they had no choice but to attempt 

to express their dissatisfaction through the funding process.61

Th e House Internal Security Committee, as it was later 

known, was abolished in January 1975 at the outset of the 94th

Congress (1975–1976) and its responsibilities were transferred 

to the Judiciary Committee.62 “Contrary to expectation,” 

according to Paul Rundquist, “the Judiciary Committee did 

not establish a separate internal security subcommittee, and 

transferred only seven of the Internal Security Committee 

staff to its payroll. Supporters of the Internal Security Committee sought to increase the operating budget of the Judiciary Committee by $300,000 in 1975, with the specifi cation 

that the additional funds would be used to pay salaries of 

displaced Internal Security Committee staff . Th is proposal 

was defeated on March 21, 1975 by a vote of 169-206.”63

Member Allowances

Origins and Development

Following World War II, Congress faced an increasingly complex workload as it dealt with substantial growth in demands 

for legislative responses to social issues, enhanced oversight of 

executive branch activities, and constituent requests for assistance in dealing with the federal bureaucracy. Th e growing 

complexity of administrative and legislative tasks placed on 

Congress following the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act 

pressured Congress to enhance its staff , infrastructure, and 

informational resources.

To meet the challenges posed by increasing congressional issues and areas of responsibility, the Committee on 

House Administration realized that it would be necessary 

to provide Members with additional resources. For many 

years, the Committee oversaw a system of multiple allowances 

dedicated to the various needs of congressional offi ces. Th ese 

individual allowances, many of which preceded the establishment of the Committee, were adjusted, administered, and 

scrutinized separately. Today, Members are provided one 

offi cial allowance to enable them to carry out their representational duties. 

Committee’s Role in the Development of Allowances 

From 1947–1971, the Committee exercised its authority over 

allowances pursuant to its jurisdiction over House administrative matters generally as provided in the 1946 Legislative 

Reorganization Act, and as further defi ned in the Rules of the 

House of Representatives. During this period, the Committee 

provided not only resources for Member offi ce operations, 

but also imposed greater accountability standards on use of 

allowances, by exercising greater oversight of the practices and 

costs associated with allowances.

Th e Committee’s role was formally recognized statutorily in 1971, when it was given authority to issue offi cial orders 

setting and adjusting allowances.64 During fl oor debate, supporters of this move argued that it would streamline the 

allowance process and eliminate the time spent by the House 

considering regular changes to each of the allowances. Opponents, however, including some Members of the Committee, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 159

cautioned against allowing a portion of the House to make 

decisions that apply to and refl ect upon all Members. Th e 

House modifi ed the Committee’s authority in 1976 to allow 

for adjustments in offi cial Member allowances that refl ected 

changes in costs of materials, services, offi ce space, and the 

cost of living. Since then, the Committee has issued 42 orders 

aff ecting House allowances. 

In carrying out its mandate over the regulation of allowances, the Committee currently determines the limits and 

structures of allowances and reviews formulas defi ning components of the offi ce expense accounts, now known as Members’ Representational Allowances (MRAs).65 It also ensures 

compliance by Member offi ces with regulations governing 

allowances and reviews regulations on offi ce expenditures. 

Th is role extends to drafting and reviewing regulations governing the purchase, lease, and use of House equipment; overseeing the processing of vouchers for expense reimbursements; 

reviewing House computer security measures; and overseeing 

information technology in all House offi ces.

Communication of Rules and Regulations for 

Use of the MRA and Its Predecessors. The Committee regularly adopted or communicated guidelines, procedures, announcements, and reminders to the House. Th ese 

communications were issued in resolutions,66 and “Dear 

Colleague” letters. Committee staff also devoted considerable attention to preparing and updating publications 

that explain the rules and regulations governing Members’ 

allowances for offi cial offi ce operations. Th ese rules and 

regulations are contained in the Committee’s publication, 

Members’ Congressional Handbook, which was most recently 

revised on December 16, 2011. Committee decisions and 

regulations also are contained in other Committee publications and on its website. Among those publications are 

Committee Handbook, Model Employee Handbook, Telecommuting Resources, Shared Employee Manual, and Guide to 

Outfi tting and Maintaining an Offi ce of the U.S. House of 

Representatives.

67 Th e documents follow earlier guidelines, 

including Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and Expenses of Committees, Members and Employees 

and Committee Orders and directives.68

In addition to House-wide eff orts, the Committee may 

provide oral or written responses to requests for assistance 

from individual Members, committees, and congressional 

staff . Th ese inquiries cover a broad range of issues, such as 

administration of their allowances, regulations related to 

employment, authority and uses of congressional mailings, 

limitations on printing of congressional papers and documents, and scope of services provided by House service units. 

Enhancing Flexibility While Ensuring Accountability

While working to ensure accountability for the use of House 

funds, the Committee has also recognized the desire of Members to organize, staff , and equip their offi ces according to 

their own assessment of the needs and circumstances of the 

districts from which they were elected. Th is led to a transformation from a system in which Members received separate 

allowances for each category of goods and services to one 

in which Members receive one allowance for all types of 

purchases.

First Major Consolidation of Allowances, 1976–

1994. On June 28, 1976, the Committee issued Committee 

Order No. 30 providing for the transferability of Member 

allowances. Under the Order, which had the full force of 

law, Members were permitted to transfer funds among the 

allowances for constituent communication, stationery, equipment lease, postage, travel, telephone and telegraph, district 

offi ce rental, and computer service. Certain allowances were 

limited to a maximum transfer amount, including travel, 

telephone and telegraph, and district offi ce rental allowances. 

Each Member was authorized to transfer up to $12,000 from 

his or her clerk hire allowance for computer services and up 

to $3,000 per session for offi ce equipment leasing, each per 

regular session of Congress.69

In 1977, in a continuing eff ort to give Members additional fl exibility in their use of offi ce funds, the Committee 

agreed to allow Members to transfer office funds among 

their allowances. Th e immediate catalyst for change was a 

wide variance in rental costs for district offi ces, which varied 

from $4 to $13.50 per square foot, often strapping Members 

required to pay the higher rates.70 With the new authorization, Members were able to transfer among seven allowances: 
160 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

constituent communications; offi cial expenses outside Washington, DC; stationery; equipment leases; travel; telephones; 

and district offi ce rental. Further, the Committee permitted 

Members to transfer up to $12,000 each congressional session from their staff allowance to their computer and related 

services allowance.71

The new flexibility was accompanied by restrictions 

to enhance accountability. For example, the Committee in 

1977 prohibited the withdrawal of funds authorized for individual allowances for unspecifi ed use by Members. Until 

then, Members were authorized to withdraw their airmail 

and special delivery stamp allowances in cash. After a number of allegations were made that some Members withdrew 

their allowances for personal use, the Committee issued a 

formal order reducing the airmail and special delivery stamp 

allowance to token $1 per session.72 Similarly, Order No. 29, 

eff ective January 3, 1977, required each Member to itemize 

all expenses for which reimbursement was requested, and to 

fi le a list of those expenses with the Committee. Failure of a 

Member to provide an itemized list resulted in a Committeeplaced limitation on cash withdrawals from allowances for 

travel, stationery, and offi cial expenses outside Washington, 

DC, to a token $1 per session for each allowance.73 New 

allowance guidelines prohibited reimbursement for expenses 

incurred in hiring staff , purchasing media time, and paying 

fees for education and training unrelated to offi cial House 

activities. Prohibitions were also placed on certain purchases 

(including fl owers, greetings cards, donations, and trophies), 

that some Members had previously charged to their offi cial 

allowances.74 Th e Committee also banned unoffi cial accounts 

and mandated that all offi cial expenses, including those associated with mass mailings, be fi nanced only through offi cial, 

appropriated funds. Th is prohibition was included in H.Res. 

287 (95th Congress), which amended House Rules and was 

agreed to on March 2, 1977.75

Eff ective January 3, 1978, two allowances representing 

a consolidation of existing allowances were made available 

to Members in discharging their offi cial and representational 

duties. Th e Offi cial Expenses Allowance and the Clerk Hire 

Allowance were made available from noon on January 3 of 

one year until immediately prior to noon on January 3 of the 

following year. Both allowances were to be used for expenses 

incurred in the United States, and its territories and possessions. 

Th e Offi cial Expenses Allowance was comprised of previously authorized individual allowances for travel, offi ce equipment leases, district offi ce leases, stationery, telecommunications, mass mailings, postage, computer services, and other 

offi cial expenses. Th e Committee excluded certain items or 

classes of items from those payable from the allowance. Th ese 

included: expenses related to hiring staff ; certain items purchased from sources other than the House stationery store;76 

holiday greeting cards, fl owers, and trophies; personal advertisements (other than meeting or appearance notices); donation 

of any type, except U.S. fl ags fl own over the Capitol; dues or 

assessments to non-legislative support organizations;77 educational expenses for courses of study, and information or training 

programs, unless the benefi t accrued primarily to the House; 

purchases of radio and television time; and parking for Members 

in district offi ces, except when included as part of a lease. 

The Clerk Hire Allowance was authorized for the 

employment of permanent, full-time staff and could not be 

used for employment of temporary or contact service personnel. Payments were prohibited from the clerk hire fund to 

employees who did not perform the services for which they 

received compensation. 

In 1983, House Members were granted increased authority to transfer funds between allowances.78 Transfers could be 

made in either direction between the Clerk Hire and Offi ce 

Expense Allowances, and without a limit on the number of 

transfer requests a Member made in any year so long as they 

did not exceed $30,000.79 Th e transfer authority was intended 

to give Members greater fl exibility in determining their staff -

ing or expense needs. Subsequent Committee Orders in 1985, 

1990, and 1991 further expanded transfer authority.80 In 

1994, all House Members received a clerk hire allowance of 

$557,400. A Member could choose to pay their staff more 

than the standard clerk hire allowance would permit if they 

transferred funds from the expense allowance to increase the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 161

staff salary pool. Th e overall eff ect was a reduction in the 

amount available to the Member to defray offi cial expenses. 

In neither case was the total amount available to a Member 

in clerk hire and offi cial expenses funds increased. 

Second Major Consolidation of Allowances, 1995–

present. Beginning in 1995, signifi cant reforms were set in 

place to help Members save taxpayers money and improve 

the administration of constituent services. Th ese adjustments 

included important changes in the use of the representational 

allowances and franked mail.

Recognizing Members’ needs for greater fl exibility in 

managing their offi ce budgets, the Committee authorized a 

signifi cant consolidation of the allowances used by Members 

to operate their offi ces in 1995. A new single allowance, the 

Members’ Representational Allowance, replaced the former 

clerk hire allowance, the offi cial expenses allowances, and the 

offi cial mail allowance.81 Th e Committee has the authority to 

. . . fi x and adjust the amounts, terms, and conditions of, and other matters relating to the MRA 

(including all aspects of official mail) by reason 

of: 1. A change in the price of materials, services, 

or offi ce space; 2. A technological change or other 

improvement in offi ce equipment; or 3. An increase 

in rates of pay under the General Schedule, e.g., a 

comparability and/or locality wage adjustment.82 

Subsequently, the FY1996 legislative branch appropriations 

bill refl ected the merger of the three previously separate allowances into one. Th e bill combined the separate allowances for 

staff , offi cial offi ce expenses, and mail costs into a new appropriations heading, “Members’ Representational Allowances” 

(MRA).83 According to the House Appropriations Committee, 

the move simplifi ed Members’ accounting practices, minimized 

the need to reprogram funds to make up for shortfalls in funding, and allowed Members to more easily show savings achieved 

when they did not spend all of their allowance.84

Consolidation of accounts in the MRA has permitted 

Members to tailor offi ce operations to fi t their understanding of the needs of their districts and operate their offi ces 

like individual businesses. Each Member can determine the 

relative importance placed on expenses like travel, staff , and 

equipment within the overall offi ce budget. Th e establishment of the MRA also allows Members to be more accountable to the taxpayers. Th e quarterly Statement of Disbursements of the House contains a detailed breakdown – both for 

the quarter and for the “year-to-date” – of how much each 

Member spends for staff , personnel benefi ts, franked mail, 

travel, rent, utilities, communications, printing and production, supplies and materials, equipment, and various other 

operational expenses. 

In 2009, following increased interest in the MRA, 

then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi directed the Chief 

Administrative Offi cer to make future statements available 

on the website of the House of Representatives. Th e initial 

release, which was made available on November 30, 2009, 

contained information on spending for the quarter ending 

September 30, 2009. Subsequent Statements have also been 

made available online.

Budgetary responsibility has remained an important 

consideration, and since the establishment of the MRA, language in the annual appropriations acts has directed that 

unused allowances revert to the U.S. Treasury to pay down 

the national defi cit.85 Numerous bills which would require 

amounts remaining in the MRA to be used for defi cit reduction or to reduce the federal debt were also referred to the 

Committee on House Administration.

In the 112th Congress, the House agreed to H. Res. 

22, which reduced the amount authorized for salaries and 

expenses of Member, committee, and leadership offi ces in 

2011 and 2012. Th is resolution, agreed to on January 6, 2011, 

stated that the MRA allowances for these years may not 

exceed 95 percent of the amount established for 2010. Th e 

FY2011 and FY2012 appropriations acts (P.L. 112-10 and 

P.L. 112-74) also reduced the appropriation.

Additional Types of Early Allowances

Allowances provided prior to the establishment of the MRA 

for telephones, stationery, and equipment are discussed 
162 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

below. Actions related to staffi ng, offi ce space, travel, and 

franking are discussed further in subsequent sections. 

Regulation of Payments for Members’ Funeral 

Expenses. On July 12, 1949, the Subcommittee on Accounts 

adopted the fi rst detailed regulations governing payments 

from the House contingent fund to Members attending 

the funeral service of a Member.86 Also in 1949, payments 

covered reimbursements to Members for travel, lodging, 

and food expenses, and were made subject to Committee 

approval.87 During the 84th Congress (1955–1956), the Committee was given responsibility for drafting regulations, for 

the fi rst time, on use of the contingent fund to defray funeral 

expenses of Members who died while in offi ce.88

Providing Deductions for Washington, DC Living 

Expenses. Recognizing the fi nancial burden placed on most 

Members to maintain a second residence in Washington, 

DC, the Committee in 1954 supported an eff ort, approved 

by the House, to provide, for the fi rst time, a living expense 

deduction to Members while in Washington.89

Authorization of a Formal Constituent Communications Allowance. Eff ective June 1, 1975, the Committee 

began providing each Member with a constituent communication allowance. Th is allowance was equivalent to the 

fair market value of printing and production costs of two 

standard 11x17 inch congressional district-wide constituent 

mailings each year. Within this dollar amount, Members 

were authorized to send newsletters, questionnaires, and any 

other correspondence eligible to be mailed under the frank.90

Telephone Allowance. Among the fi rst actions by the 

Committee with regard to Member allowances were the 

establishment in 1949 of an offi cial telephone and telegraph 

allowance for each Member, development of procedures to 

be followed by Members in using the allowance, and making 

sure that reimbursements were made only for offi cial business 

use.91 Prior to July 1, 1949, there were no offi cial regulations 

applicable to telephone use and Members were not provided 

individual allowances. Th is often led to an uneven distribution of funds to Members and created uncertainty with 

regard to limits on Members’ use. Th e Committee’s eff orts 

were responsible for establishing the fi rst authorization of an 

annual monetary allowance for long-distance telephone calls 

and telegrams, limited to strictly offi cial business.92

The Committee continued to consider legislation 

amending the telephone allowances. Th e following Congress, the Committee reported H.Res. 218, which would 

increase the allowance, and H.R. 3939, which would establish 

a new method for regulating monthly charges.93 Th e latter 

was enacted on May 29, 1951.94 Another bill, H.R. 8499, 

which moved the allocation cycle from a fi scal year basis to 

one based on sessions of Congress, was reported on July 8, 

1952, and enacted the same day.95 In the 83rd Congress (1953–

1954), the Committee reported H.R. 2330, which converted 

the monthly limits on telephone and telegraph services to an 

annual limit. Th is bill was enacted on March 10, 1953.96 Th e 

Committee reported legislation with similar revisions and 

adjustments over the next few years, many of which were 

enacted into law.97 It also considered telephone allowances 

for district offi ces. In order to meet communications expenses 

not covered by Members’ allowances for telephone expenses 

in Washington, DC, for example, the Committee in 1967 

established the fi rst separate allowance for telephone and 

telegraph expenses incurred beyond the Capitol.98

Th e Committee was also responsible for responding to 

questions that arose regarding telephone usage. In 1960, for 

example, a Member questioned if he was legally required 

to pay the federal excise tax on offi cial telephone calls that 

exceeded his allowance. In such cases, Members had been told 

to pay the tax from personal funds. Th e Committee turned 

for a ruling from the Comptroller General, who responded 

that an Internal Revenue Service order of June 20, 1947, specifi cally did not exempt Members from the tax.99

By 1971, the Committee’s recognized role was to prescribe regulations governing payment of funds, on a quarterly 

basis, to pay for expenses of offi cial long-distance telephone 

calls, telegrams, cablegrams, and radiograms made or sent by 

or on behalf of Members.100 Under the Committee’s direction, 

any unused portion of each quarterly allowance lapsed, and 

was no longer available. Th e following elements, not set in 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 163

law, also were deemed within the authority of the Committee: (1) defi nition of units;101 (2) adjustment of the number of 

units permitted each Member; (3) adjustment of the number 

of units permitted Members elected for a portion of a term; 

(4) conditions under which a Member could accumulate 

units from session to session and term to term; (5) limits on 

accumulations; (6) uses of allowances; (7) time periods to 

which the allowances for telephone calls incurred outside 

Washington, DC, applied; (8) sums permissible under such 

allowances; and (9) procedures under which allowances were 

to be disbursed or allowed. Th e Committee issued a number of orders in the 1970s pursuant to this authority.102 For 

example, eff ective January 3, 1975, the Committee allowed 

telephone and telegraph allowances to be transferred between 

Washington, DC, and district offi ces.103

Th e Committee also examined Member needs and opinions regarding telephone service, including service for district 

offi ces.104 In 1988, for example, it established a Staff Task 

Force on District Offi ce Communications, which sent a survey to each Member district offi ce. Th e Committee’s responsibilities expanded with the availability of new technology. In 

April 1991, a staff task force began developing guidelines for 

cellular telephone service for members. A month later, the full 

committee continued consideration.105 On January 22, 1992, 

the Committee announced its approval of an audix voice mail 

system for Members’ offi ces.106

Stationery Allowance. In an eff ort to address questions on proper use of the stationery allowance that arose in 

the 1950s, the Committee tightened use of the allowance. It 

required that the allowance of a Member serving only part 

of a term of offi ce be prorated to refl ect that Member’s time 

in offi ce.107 Earlier in 1947, funds appropriated for Members’ stationery allowances were required to be deposited in 

a House revolving fund,108 and, in 1956, a prorated allowance 

was provided for Members elected for a portion of a term.109

Th e allowance levels were adjusted in resolutions reported 

by the Committee which were adopted by the House and in 

legislative branch appropriations acts.110 To meet increasing 

requests for the services of the House printing clerks, the 

Committee in 1958 began requiring that those costs be paid 

by Members from their stationery allowances. Th e Committee required Members to include in each purchase order 

the type of service requested and its expense, and to retain a 

copy for future audit. Any expenses exceeding the amount 

of money remaining in a Member’s stationery allowance 

had to be paid from the Member’s personal resources.111 In 

the event of a Member’s death or resignation, the remaining 

stationery allowance was paid to the Member, his or her 

spouse, or estate.112

To provide more fl exibility to Members in their use of 

offi ce funds, a resolution was reported by the Committee in 

1963 and adopted by the House allowing Members to withdraw money from their stationery allowances to meet other 

offi ce expenses.113 For tax purposes, the Committee noted, 

withdrawn cash was considered income and taxable. Subsequent press accounts of alleged personal use of withdrawn 

funds by some Members led the Committee in 1977 to reduce 

the amount that could be withdrawn to a token amount of 

$1 per session of Congress.114

Offi ce Equipment Allowance. In order to gain greater 

control over the selection and cost of offi ce equipment available to Member offi ces, the Committee in 1951 established a 

limit on the value of equipment in use at any one time. Th is 

action was one of the fi rst steps taken by the Committee to 

adequately evaluate available offi ce equipment and address 

current and anticipated needs.115

Standardization, Limitation, and Control of Offi ce 

Equipment Used in the House. Since there were no limitations on the types of electrical and mechanical equipment 

authorized for purchase by the House prior to 1953, the Committee undertook an inventory of equipment early that year. An 

inventory found 1,000 items of equipment, divided into 100 

types.116 In order to standardize inventory held by the House for 

assignment to Member offi ces, the Committee reported H.J. 

Res. 206, which limited the purchase of equipment to fi ve general categories, based on federal and private sector equipment 

standards.117 Th e legislation was enacted on March 25, 1953.118

In its report, the Committee stated that standardization limited 
164 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the amount of new equipment that needed to be purchased 

and minimized the accumulation of further surplus inventory. 

Subsequently, the Committee required reassignment of equipment transferred from the offi ces of outgoing members. Both 

actions ultimately resulted in signifi cant cost savings through 

more effi cient equipment management.119

In 1954, the Committee acted to control the rising cost 

of offi ce equipment by setting limits on the cost of such purchases, and specifying the types of equipment that could be 

bought. Members were not permitted to have more than two 

addressing machines, automatic typewriters, electric typewriters, dictating and transcribing machines, and duplication 

machines. Additional legislation limiting or regulating equipment sponsored by the Committee in subsequent years was 

enacted into law.120 Th e following year, the Committee established a Special Subcommittee on Offi ce Equipment to ensure 

greater oversight of offi ce equipment demands and improve 

administration of the equipment program. In 1957, the name 

of the Subcommittee was changed to the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment.121

In another eff ort to keep offi ce equipment costs down, 

the Committee in 1956 proposed a method for computing 

the value of offi ce equipment. Determination of equipment 

value was based on purchase price less depreciation over an 

estimated ten-year useful life, at 10% per annum of book 

value.122 Early in 1959, Committee Chairman Omar Burleson requested the U.S. Comptroller General to conduct an 

audit of the records and administrative procedures used by 

the Clerk of the House regarding House property. Th e audit 

report, issued October 20, 1960, recommended improvements in accountability by requiring the Committee, along 

with the Clerk of the House, to prepare a manual of accounting procedures and conduct an inventory of furniture and 

equipment at the end of each session of Congress.123

Move Toward Flexibility in Acquisition of Office 

Equipment. While ensuring appropriate controls of House 

property and funds, the Committee also sought to maximize the ability of Members to organize and equip their 

own offi ces. In 1969, the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, in an eff ort to enhance 

administration of the House offi ce equipment program, made 

recommendations which included major adjustments in the 

offi ce equipment allowance. Adopted by the full Committee, 

these changes: (1) consolidated equipment purchases and 

equipment loans under two monetary allowances, one for 

Members, and the second for committees;124 (2) established a 

maximum value of equipment provided to Members; and (3) 

limited the value of each item to its initial purchase cost, less 

depreciation. If Members exceeded their maximum authorized limits, as determined by the Committee, the House 

Clerk was required to notify them that they could only 

keep the equipment if it was paid for from personal funds or 

agreed in writing that title to such equipment remain with 

the House.125

In 1969, the Committee reported H.R. 13949 (91st Congress). Th is bill, which was enacted on December 5, 1969, 

amended the types and categories of offi ce equipment established in law in 1953. Th e new legislation gave the Committee 

authority to determine types and categories of equipment that 

would be provided, to issue regulations governing the use of 

equipment, and to establish the total value of equipment, allowing for depreciation.126 In order to expand options for equipment selection and save money on purchases, the Committee in 

1971 authorized a lease program for electrical and mechanical 

equipment in a Member’s Washington, DC offi ce.127

The Committee also provided Members with more 

flexibility in using office funds to purchase equipment. 

Knowing that many Members did not use all the clerk hire 

funds allocated to them and faced an increased need for 

new equipment, the Committee adopted an order, late in 

1973, granting Members authority to use their unspent 

clerk hire funds, subject to a dollar cap, to lease additional 

offi ce equipment for their Washington, DC offi ces.128 Two 

years later, in response to Member requests for additional 

computer assistance, the Committee in 1975 authorized the 

use of unspent clerk hire funds to pay for computer services. 

Th is in eff ect established what became known as the fi rst 

allowance for computers.129
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 165

Establishment of District Offi ce Furnishings Guidelines and Control. Prior to August 11, 1967, the General 

Services Administration (GSA) provided district offi ce furnishings and equipment on an informal basis from a limited 

supply list. Due to inconsistencies in the distribution of supplies and minimal accountability of their use, the Committee 

sought to put in place procedures guaranteeing uniformity 

and accountability. Taking the lead, and working with GSA, 

the Committee prepared formal guidelines to be followed in 

furnishing district offi ces.130 Among them were placement of 

monetary limits on the value of equipment and furnishings, 

expansion of the defi nition of equipment to include furniture, 

and requirement that GSA purchase equipment and furnishings from federal government sources. Th e Committee 

continued to prohibit reimbursements for staff purchases, 

disallow furnishing of a non-government space, and authorize 

the use of equipment and furnishings in two district offi ces. 

Th e Committee also sought to ensure accountability and 

control over equipment that extended across the country. Committee staff , along with staff from the General Services Administration (GSA), in 1982, for example, conducted extensive fi eld 

visits to audit furnishings in Member’s district offi ces. Th ese 

audits were held in conjunction with pending revisions to a 

GSA order specifying regulations for such furnishings. Th e 

Committee periodically revised guidelines related to district 

offi ce furnishings. New guidelines were announced, for example, in a January 5, 1988 “Dear Colleague” to all Members.131

Revision of Guidelines Regarding Members’ Liabilities for Missing Equipment. On July 27, 1981, the 

Committee issued an exhaustive revision and expansion 

of guidelines for handling cases of missing equipment and 

Members’ liabilities for outstanding obligations.132 Under 

the procedures each Member was personally responsible for 

payments of expenses incurred in support of offi cial and representational duties, which exceeded his or her authorized 

allowances. Among the tightened rules, Members were 

required to prove in their requests for payments that they 

exercised “reasonable diligence” in ensuring the protection 

and care of issued equipment. 

Continued Support, Monitoring and Coordination. 

Th e Committee continued to support Members’ equipment 

acquisitions needs by organizing equipment fairs, discussing 

policy recommendations and guidelines, monitoring vendors 

on the House approved list, and hearing.133

House Personnel

Origins and Development

Th e House of Representatives determines its own staffi ng 

policies and compensation levels in accordance with applicable law.134 Ensuring suffi cient and eff ective assistance for 

Members and committees to carry out their congressional 

responsibilities has been a key internal concern for over a century. Th e level of assistance for committees in the House has 

changed dramatically since the mid-1800s, when the most 

infl uential committees fi rst requested professional staff .135

Individual Members did not receive an allowance for assistance in their personal offi ces until 1893. 

Role of Committee

Th e Committee on House Administration has been active in 

employment issues since its creation. Its work in this area has 

routinely required it to weigh a variety of factors. What is the 

proper balance between providing adequate resources to meet 

Members’ needs while remaining aware of the costs to taxpayers? How should the Committee ensure the independence of 

Members and chairmen to retain the staff of their choosing 

while establishing certain basic ground rules? What actions 

are necessary to maintain the appropriate balance between 

the pay of House staff and that of the Senate, the executive 

and the private sector? Th e Committee’s eff orts to answer 

these and other questions have helped to increase the effi -

ciency and professionalization of the House work force, and 

it currently oversees a much diff erent employment structure 

than it initially found.

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 represented 

the fi rst major attempt to adequately staff all standing committees. While the act did not, contrary to calls from some 

contemporary observers, adjust clerk-hire allowances for 
166 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Members, it indirectly infl uenced this area by establishing 

the Committee on House Administration and according 

it jurisdiction over staffi ng matters. Evaluating the reform 

fi ve years after its enactment, congressional observer George 

Galloway stated that “more and better staff aids for members 

and committees of Congress were a major objective of the 

Act, and much progress in the staffi ng of Congress has been 

achieved.”136 More recently, Roger Davidson, a long-time 

student of Congress, has written that the staffi ng “innovations, which have proved critical in helping Congress meet 

contemporary legislative challenges, are perhaps the most 

notable legacy of the 1946 act.”137 Th e Committee on House 

Administration has had a signifi cant role in implementing 

this and other reforms and ensuring this progress.

Th e act authorized four professional and six clerical staff 

for each committee. Th e Appropriations Committees could 

set their own levels. Although the act was silent on staffi ng for 

Members, they were permitted fi ve staff pursuant to earlier 

regulations.138 Th e growth in the number of congressional 

employees after 1946 prompted studies seeking to explain the 

increase in staff , as well as their role and infl uence.139 Among 

the reasons cited for the expansion was Congress’ desire to 

develop its own source of professional expertise to assist it in 

its oversight duties and allow it to avoid excessive dependence 

upon the executive branch for information. Larger legislative 

and constituency workloads, the increasing complexity of 

legislation in the post-war era, and various attempts to ensure 

adequate minority and subcommittee staffi ng have also been 

cited as contributing factors to the increase. Additional space 

available in the Rayburn and Ford House Offi ce Buildings, 

which joined the Cannon and Longworth Buildings in 1965 

and 1975, respectively, also allowed the House to expand its 

staff capacity.

Like many other areas of internal congressional operations, staffi ng procedures after the 1946 Reorganization Act 

were signifi cantly altered by the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1970, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 

and periodic rules changes, as well as changes stipulated in 

resolutions and annual appropriations measures. Th roughout 

these changes, the Committee on House Administration has 

maintained jurisdiction over internal employment issues under 

the House Rules,140 monitoring the application of these current 

laws and proving an active voice during the many reforms.

While Members and committees retain signifi cant fl exibility with respect to their own employment practices, they 

must conform to certain guidelines and limitations established by the Committee, the House, and applicable laws. 

Th e Committee considers issues pertaining to (1) terms and 

conditions of employment, (2) appropriate number of staff 

as well as Member and committee salary allowances and (3) 

retention, which has been a concern of the Committee for 

all categories of employees. Th e Committee has repeatedly 

shown interest in the turnover of House employees, as well 

as in comparing the compensation and benefi ts off ered by 

the House to those in the Senate, the executive branch, and 

the private sector. 

Chamber Employment: Policies and Procedures

Some of the actions taken by the Committee in the area of 

employment apply to all House staff , while others may apply 

only to staff of Members, committees, or offi cers. As demonstrated below, however, the Committee fulfi lls a similar 

educational role and position within the legislative process for 

these groups. Additionally, while the employing authorities 

are given signifi cant discretion in determining who to hire 

and in setting compensation, they are constrained by similar 

laws and internal policies that fall under the oversight of this 

Committee.

Relationship With Committee on Appropriations. 

Although committee chairs continue to have discretion in 

organizing and managing their own offi ces, the Committee 

maintains the legislative jurisdiction and ability to regulate the 

formulas and guidelines that govern the employment of staff .

Th e Committee shares its responsibility in this area with 

the Committee on Appropriations, which reports the annual 

appropriations measure funding the legislative branch. Th e 

two entities, however, consider the authorizing and appropriations levels for diff erent time-frames. While the Appropriations Committee funds the committee and staff salaries for 

each fi scal year, the Committee on House Administration 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 167

recommends the biennial funding level for each committee 

(except Appropriations) in a resolution early each Congress. 

Funds for personnel in Members’ offices, which are provided for in the Members’ Representational Allowance, are 

announced by the Committee for each calendar year.

Members’ Congressional Handbook and Committee Handbook. In addition to formulating the policies and 

procedures governing the internal operations of the House, 

the Committee works to educate and assist both employing offi ces and staff on their rights and duties. It currently 

achieves this through the issuance of “Dear Colleague” letters, answering individual questions with the assistance of 

its expert staff, and by frequently reviewing and revising 

the Members’ Congressional Handbook and the Committee 

Handbook.

Th e Committee has produced these publications and 

their predecessors for many years. In 1965, as part of the 

continuing effort to strengthen and institutionalize the 

administration of the House, the committee published: Th e 

Committee on House Administration: Policies, Precedents and 

Procedures Including Related Statistical Information, January 

1947–January 1966 as a committee print. Th e print specifi ed 

numerous rules and regulations promulgated by the Committee in carrying out its responsibilities, precedents and legislation which defi ned the Committee’s authority or policies and 

procedures governing the broad spectrum of matters within 

its jurisdiction.141 Th is publication was followed by: Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and Expenses 

of Committees, Members, and Employees which was issued by 

the committee in 1970.142 Th ese were initially reprinted in 

the biennial Report on Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration the Committee was required to produce 

beginning with the 94th Congress.143

Associate and Shared Staff. Associate and shared 

employees are either designated by a Member to assist in 

his or her committee work or are employed by multiple 

employing authorities. Th is may include, for example, staff -

ers who are paid partly from committee funds and partly 

from the representational allowance of one of the committee 

Members. Regulations issued by the Committee on House 

Administration stipulate that the pay received by a shared 

employee from the diff erent authorities should refl ect the 

respective work performed and require the employee to 

count against each committee’s staff ceiling. Th ese employees are exempt from the requirement in the Rules that committee employees not be assigned any duties other than 

those pertaining to committee business, although the Committee on House Administration has authority to review the 

use of any “associate” or “shared” staff by any committee 

other than the Committee on Appropriations.

Th e Committee has issued additional regulations pertaining to shared employees. For example, during the 104th

Congress (1995–1996), the Committee adopted regulations 

concerning the operation of Congressional Member Organizations (CMO), communicating them through the distribution of a “Dear Colleague” letter on February 10, 1995. 

Th e communication notes that “two or more Members may 

aggregate clerk hire resources to fund one or more staff positions to perform research and other duties in support,” but a 

CMO itself cannot be a hiring authority.144

During the 110th Congress, the Committee examined 

the use of shared staff by House offices. At a hearing on 

May 21, 2008, the Committee heard from James J. Cornell, 

Inspector General of the House of Representatives, who presented his fi ndings following an investigation. In addition to 

citing disparities in use of shared employees, the Inspector 

General report (08-CAO-07), provided recommendations to 

address questions of inadequate oversight, ensure compliance 

with current laws and House rules, and provide for appropriate separation of duties. On July 30, 2008, the Committee 

adopted Resolution 110-7, requiring any House employee 

employed by three or more offi ces to (1) inform each offi ce 

in writing of any changes in employment status with other 

employing authorities, (2) acknowledge receipt of a shared 

employee manual and certify compliance, and (3) fi le an 

annual fi nancial disclosure statement. Additionally, the resolution states that House employees may not, through outside 

business activities, sell, lease, or provide goods to the House. 

Employment and Benefi ts for Veterans and Military 

Liaisons. Th e Committee has considered legislation and 
168 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

initiatives specifi cally concerning veterans and the military 

community on Capitol hill. Th e Committee supported the 

CAO’s eff orts related to the “Wounded Warrior Fellowship 

Program.” Th is program, which was established in the 110th 

Congress, provides two-year employment opportunities in 

the House for wounded or disabled veterans. 

Th e Committee has also examined salary implications for 

House staff called to active duty. It reported a bill, H.R. 1679, 

on April 22, 2009, that would provide payments to House 

employees who are involuntarily called into active military duty 

equivalent to the diff erence between the employee’s military 

salary and the employee’s House salary prior to activation. Th e 

legislation was agreed to in the House by a vote of 423-0 on 

April 22, 2009, but no further action was taken in the Senate. 

The Committee also worked to provide active duty 

members of the Armed Forces assigned to a congressional 

liaison offi ce access to the House staff fi tness facility. In the 

110th Congress, the Committee passed a resolution granting 

this access. In the next Congress, the Committee worked to 

make that language permanent, reported H.R. 1752 and 

H.R. 5682.145 Th e latter bill was enacted (P.L. 111-248) on 

September 30, 2010.

Interns. Th e House has benefi tted from the assistance 

of countless paid and unpaid interns. Th e Committee has 

been charged with establishing regulations governing the 

employment of these individuals. It also considered the fi rst 

successful resolution formalizing an internship program. Th is 

legislation, H.Res. 416 of the 89th Congress (1965–1966), 

allowed each Member to hire one employee known as a “student congressional intern” for no longer than two and a half 

months at a rate not to exceed $300 per month.146 Funds for 

the interns were provided in addition to the regular clerkhire allowance. Th e student intern was required to submit a 

certifi cate of study to the Clerk, but the Committee was given 

authority to determine additional regulations.

During the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), the Committee 

reported a resolution, later adopted by the House and then 

enacted into permanent law, repealing the earlier action and 

establishing the Lyndon B. Johnson (L.B.J.) Congressional 

Intern Program for students or secondary school teachers.147

Th e program authorized each offi ce to hire one such intern 

for up to two months in any year and increased the amount 

then available to each offi ce for intern salaries to $1,000. It also 

eliminated the restriction of hosting paid interns only during 

the summer months. Rather, it allowed for only one such 

intern at a time and no more than two in a year. Th e maximum allowance was frequently raised under the Federal Pay 

Comparability Act of 1970, until the program was temporarily 

suspended in 1986 due to the Gramm-Rudman sequestration. 

In a “Dear Colleague” letter issued on November 18, 1986, the 

Committee announced that it would be reinstated the following year. It was suspended again a few years later as part of an 

eff ort to decrease the number of House personnel.148

In addition to the legislation dealing with the L.B.J. 

program, the Committee has received resolutions proposing 

paid internships for foreign students, veterans, and seniors. 

During the 95th Congress (1977–1978), the Subcommittee 

on Accounts, for example, heard testimony in support of the 

senior citizen internship program, which had been informally 

operated by various Members since 1973.149 No further legislative action, however, was taken by the House although the 

program continued to operate for many years.150

The Committee has also considered legislation that 

would establish a congressional clerkship program that would 

bring up to 12 recent law graduates to Congress for one-year 

terms. Th e graduates would be split equally among the House 

and Senate and majority and minority offi ces, with the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee 

on House Administration serving as the selection committee, 

and receive compensation and benefi ts comparable to judicial 

clerks for the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Th e Committee marked up bills in the 110th and 

111th Congresses (H.R.6475 and H.R. 151, respectively), 

which were passed by the House. Both bills were referred to 

committee in the Senate, where companion legislation had 

been introduced (S. 3533 and S. 27) but no further action was 

taken. Chairman Lungren introduced another bill to establish 

this program in the 112th Congress (H.R. 1374). 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 169

An internship program for individuals with intellectual 

disabilities was established by Representative Gregg Harper, 

a member of the Committee, in the spring of 2010. Th e program, which the Committee administers, pairs congressional offi ces with students from George Mason University’s 

Mason LIFE Program--a postsecondary education program 

for young adults with intellectual disabilities. Th e program 

began as a pilot with six House offi ces participating, grew 

to 20 offi ces by spring 2011, with 44 participating offi ces 

by December 2011.151 As of 2012, over 52 Congressional 

offi ces from both the House and Senate had participated in 

the program. 

Th e Committee has also examined the relationship of 

paid interns to offi ce staffi ng ceilings as well as the provision 

of employment benefi ts. H.Res. 359, which was reported 

by the Committee on July 19, 1979 (96th Congress) and 

agreed to in the House the following day, exempted up to 

four interns, part-time, temporary, or shared employees, and 

employees on leave without pay, from counting toward the 

limitation on Members from employing in excess of 18 permanent clerks.152 Th e resolution also stipulated that an intern 

could not be compensated for more than 120 days per year 

and is not eligible for employment benefi ts like health and 

life insurance. Subsequent regulations emphasized that the 

intern program is primarily for the educational experience of 

the individual.153

Members and committees currently hire and compensate 

interns at their discretion and from their regular funds. Th e 

Committee continues to assist interns by providing them with 

information on various opportunities. For many years, the 

Committee has helped enrich their educational experience 

by cosponsoring the summer Congressional Intern Lecture 

Series with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Th e Committee works with its Senate counterpart to 

arrange discussions with infl uential and informative speakers and publicizes the events within the House through the 

issuance of “Dear Colleague” letters and the intern webpage.

Basic vs. Gross Salary. Upon its inception, the Committee inherited a basic pay system that was established in 1945 

and governed House employee pay for the next 25 years. Th is 

system initially required compensation rates to be in multiples 

of fi ve dollars. Th rough a formula which grew increasingly 

complex over intervening years, this basic amount was converted into an actual dollar amount for each employee by considering increases authorized in subsequent applicable pay acts. 

Th e per Member increases proposed in resolutions reported 

by the Committee also refl ected basic rates. Th is resulted in 

frequent discussion and confusion in the Committee and on 

the fl oor as Members tried to assess actual employment costs 

and the impact of various allowance adjustments.

For example, John Kyl of Iowa, a member of the Committee, objected to the 1961 allowance increase of $3,000 

per Member because of costs both hidden and apparent. In 

remarks on the House fl oor, Kyl stated that “no Member of 

this House can tell us what this means in gross salary. Th at 

computation is almost impossible. Such a completely absurd 

system has developed through the years on salary computations for clerical hire that we have under discussion a mathematical monstrosity.”154

Th e complexity of the procedure was again evident when 

the Subcommittee on Accounts considered a proposal to 

increase the number of allowable clerks but not funds a few 

years later. Omar Burleson, Chairman of the full Committee, 

pointed out that despite the premise, “there will be additional 

costs in the operation of it unless we do change these multiples of hire,” before adding “how anybody has room for 

more employees, I don’t know.”155 Th e Subcommittee then 

discussed the desirability of using multiples of 60, 120, 180 

and 188. Some Members questioned the utility of the base 

method, with William Dickinson of Alabama noting the 

simplicity in a gross salary system. Samuel Devine of Ohio 

took his assessment of the base system a step further, stating 

“we can submerge the true salary from the Press and they can 

put it in any way. It is subterfuge, I think.”156

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 eliminated 

the base system and required all employees in the House 

to be paid a single gross per annum salary.157 Th e provision 

was included through an amendment on the House fl oor 
170 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

on September 16 after some discussion of the Committee’s 

previous actions in this area.158 Th e legislation also required 

clerk hire allowances to be expressed in gross terms, although 

the corresponding section of the Code was repealed when 

other payroll administration reforms were adopted in 1996.159 

Pay Ceilings. Th e Committee has also monitored the 

limits on the compensation of House employees. Legislation 

considered during the earlier years of the Committee specifi cally noted some limitations. For example, the clerk-hire 

adjustment adopted in 1964 specifi ed that “no person shall 

be paid from such clerk hire allowance at a basic rate in excess 

of $7,500 per annum, and not more than one person shall be 

paid” at that rate at a given time.160 In 1977, the Committee 

used its authority to adjust the conditions of allowances to 

“tie the maximum annual rate of compensation which may be 

paid from the clerk-hire allowance to the Executive Schedule, 

and . . . reestablish the previously existing parity between the 

maximum which may be paid a committee employee, and the 

maximum which may be paid a clerk-hire employee.”161 Th e 

maximum rate of pay was equal to level fi ve of the Executive Schedule, which is the lowest-salaried of the executive 

levels and frequently includes directors and administrators of 

federal agency units. Ten years later, the FY1988 Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Act gave the Speaker the authority to 

set maximum and minimum rates of pay for employees of 

committees, Members, and offi cers. Th e Speaker has since 

issued these rates in the Orders of the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives.162

Salary Adjustments. Pay raises for committee and personal employees have been governed by the determination of 

the employing Member or committee in accordance with a 

series of pay acts and determinations by the Committee. Th e 

pay legislation includes, for example, the Legislative Pay Act 

of 1929 (which preceded the Committee), the Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964, the Federal Salary Act of 1967 and the 

Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970. Th e Committee has 

often responded to these acts by reporting resolutions or providing other adjustments to bring staff salary allowances into 

line with pay adjustments required by the laws or in an eff ort 

to maintain pay parity with the executive branch. As with 

other areas of employment, the Committee has sought a balance between the need for fi scal responsibility and accountability, incentives for staff retention, and the promotion of 

maximum fl exibility for Members and committees. 

During its history, the Committee has monitored the 

funds required for these committee staff compensation 

increases. It held a hearing on August 11, 1964 on a resolution authorizing the expenditure from the contingent fund of 

up to $242,549.62 to pay the increase in salaries authorized 

by the Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964 for the investigative staff . Th e Committee reported the bill, and Samuel 

Friedel of Maryland explained its purpose to his colleagues in 

an August 14, speech stating that “under the last Federal Pay 

Raise Act all of the staff members of all of the committee[s] 

were given an automatic increase. Th is resolution is necessary 

in order to grant these committees the necessary funds with 

which to complete their work for the balance of the year.”163

Th e resolution was subsequently agreed to.

Similar eff orts were made with regard to the provision of 

the annual clerk-hire allowance for Members. When issuing 

an order setting this authorization eff ective January 3, 1977, 

the Committee noted that the amount “may be adjusted by 

the Committee on House Administration subsequent to the 

adoption of this order to refl ect any adjustment to federal 

salary levels that occur under the Federal Pay Comparability 

Act of 1971.”164

As one more recent report, which accompanied the 

funding resolution for the 108th Congress, demonstrates, 

the Committee considers yearly increases in the executive 

branch and the Senate when recommending the authorization of various funds:

Managed properly by committee chairmen and 

their ranking minority members, we are confi dent 

that the proposed 9.4 percent increase will provide 

almost all House committees adequate resources 

over the next two years to match the 4.1 percent pay 

increase that President Bush has provided to federal employees in the Executive Branch under the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 171

Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990, a decision 

that the U.S. Senate quickly followed with respect 

to its committee staff compensation policies . . . To 

prevent these public service professionals from 

fl ocking to the Senate, executive branch, or private 

sector—where the skills are highly sought-after and 

handsomely remunerated—and causing a concomitant ‘brain-drain’ in the House of Representatives, 

committees must have the resources to compete in 

the marketplace for talent and expertise. We are 

pleased to see that the resolution provides resources 

to at least keep pace with Executive Branch and the 

Senate.165

The Committee has also overseen the efforts of the 

House offi cers in this area. Th e Federal Pay Comparability 

Act of 1970, as amended, requires the Chief Administrative 

Offi cer of the House of Representatives (CAO) to determine 

the respective amounts of pay adjustments that correspond to 

any increases in pay adjustments made by the President under 

section 5303 of title 5. Th e CAO transmits to the various payfi xing authorities a copy of his calculations for their review 

and determination.166

Gratuity Payments. Like Members’ heirs, survivors 

of deceased employees of the House may receive gratuity 

gifts.167 Th ese payments were handled through individual 

resolutions until the early 1950s. On July 17, 1953, the Committee favorably reported a resolution, agreed to in the House 

the same day, authorizing the Clerk, who then served as the 

disbursing authority, to provide for the gratuity during any 

recess or adjournment during the fi rst session of the 83rd 

Congress (1953–1954).168 Th e following year, the legislative 

branch appropriations act authorized the Clerk to pay a gratuity to the employee’s heirs equal to “one month’s salary for 

each year or part of year of the fi rst six years service of such 

employee plus one-half of one month’s salary for each year 

or part of year of such service in excess of six years to and 

including the eighteenth year of such service.”169 During the 

104th Congress (1995–1996), the disbursement of payments 

to the heirs of House employees was transferred to the Chief 

Administrative Offi cer. Additionally, unlike other funds for 

House employees, these gratuity payments are provided for in 

the allowances and expenses section of the annual legislative 

branch appropriations bills.

Th e Committee has provided continuous oversight of 

these gifts, holding hearings on a variety of topics associated 

with their disbursement. Th ese include a 1957 hearing on the 

payment due the heirs of Edward Joseph Marshall, a food 

service employee, when the Committee weighed in on the 

question as to whether or not the gratuity can be divided and 

reviewed the process for designating an heir or heirs. 

Th e Committee also examined the distribution of gratuities to employees of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). 

Th e 1954 legislation did not authorize payments for those 

employees based in the House, the Committee was told 

by Executive Assistant to the Architect Philip L. Roof and 

King Milner, the Chief of Personnel and Payroll Division of 

the AOC.170 Th e Senate, these witnesses testifi ed, routinely 

authorized such payments through specifi c resolutions for 

the heirs of deceased AOC employees that had served their 

chamber. Th e Committee held a number of hearings on the 

disparity in the early 1960s, evaluating this in the context of 

other issues relating to diff erential treatment of staff as well 

as additional personnel requests. After considering the proposals to create a uniform procedure in a hearing on June 11, 

1963, the Committee reported H.Res. 291 (88th Congress), 

which established a gratuity system under the regulation of 

the Committee. Th e report indicated that the Committee 

believed that these employees “should have the same rights 

and privileges granted House employees accorded their fellow 

employees assigned to duty in the U.S. Senate.”171 Both the 

hearing and the report addressed the requirement that gratuities only be paid to the heirs of employees who served at least 

six years. Th e resolution was agreed to by the House on June 

18 and was made permanent the following year in a provision 

included in the legislative branch appropriations act.172

Oversight of Payroll System and Guidelines. The 

Committee has worked to establish regulations that would 

simplify the rolls of the House and avail its employees of 
172 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

certain automatic payroll deduction programs and benefi ts. 

On October 19, 1966, for example, Wayne Hays of Ohio 

announced on the floor that the Committee had unanimously passed a motion aimed at stemming the fl ow of people in and out of House employment. Th e motion directed 

that employees should not be placed on the payroll for less 

than one month and prevented any employee terminated in 

less than one month from being re-employed by the same 

Member or committee for six months. Hays explained that 

such a directive was necessary to resolve the practice of some 

offi ces of enrolling employees for only a day or two, which 

had “caused an impossible situation in the Clerk’s offi ce with 

regard to writing payroll checks.”173 Th e Committee continued to include this stipulation in many of its successive 

publications on allowance and other regulations.174

A few years later, the Subcommittee on Accounts worked 

to permit House employees to contribute to charitable 

organizations in coordination with the Combined Federal 

Campaign, reporting a resolution that was agreed to in the 

House on August 5, 1977.175 More recently, the Committee 

announced in a “Dear Colleague” letter that employees of the 

House would be eligible to participate in the Federal Flexible 

Spending Accounts Program eff ective April 1, 2005.176 Th is 

program allows employees to use pre-tax dollars for health 

and dependent care costs. 

Th e Committee has overseen the disbursement of pay for 

House employees through its review of the House offi cers and 

coordination with the Committee on Appropriations. Th e 

Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO) is currently responsible 

for the processing of the payroll and other vouchers, a responsibility transferred from the Clerk of the House in 1995. Th e 

Committee has overseen the work of the CAO, for example, 

by approving of the purchase of a new staff payroll system in 

2001 and monitoring its implementation. Th e Committee 

also evaluated recommendations from the House Inspector 

General to the CAO to increase the reliability in the payroll 

system and reduce or eliminate errors.177

In recent years, the Committee has also examined the 

desirability of altering the pay periods of House employees, who are paid once per month. In 2001, the Committee 

requested the Committee on Appropriations incorporate a 

provision altering the statute addressing the pay day for House 

employees in the fi scal year 2002 legislative branch appropriations bill.178 In the 110th Congress, the Committee reported 

H.R. 5493, which would grant the Committee authority to 

establish regulations regarding the day for paying salaries. Th e 

House and Senate both passed the bill, although they did not 

reconcile their diff erences. Th e Committee again considered 

a bill to grant this authority in the 111th Congress, reporting 

H.R. 1752 on June 19, 2009. Th e House, however, failed to 

pass this bill under the 2/3 vote required under suspension of 

the rules, on July 30, 2009. 

The 110th Congress also examined ways to provide 

employees with electronic pay receipts. H.Res. 1207, which 

was introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx of North 

Carolina on May 16, 2008, directs the Chief Administrative 

Officer (CAO) of the House of Representatives to provide 

individuals whose pay is disbursed electronically by the CAO 

with the option of receiving receipts of pay and withholdings 

electronically. Th e resolution was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, which amended and reported it on 

July 30, 2008. Th e resolution is similar to H.R. 6073, which 

would require the Offi ce of Personnel Management to ensure 

that all executive branch employees have the option of receiving 

pay stubs electronically. Th at bill, which was also introduced by 

Representative Foxx, was reported by the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform on July 16, 2008. H.Res. 

1207 was adopted by the House on September 11, while H.R. 

6073 was enacted as P.L. 110-423 on October 15, 2008.

Provisions related to the performance of duties, 

division of salaries, and subletting of duties. For many 

years, the House maintained an offi cial requirement that 

employees “only be assigned to and engaged upon the duties 

of the positions to which they are appointed and for which 

compensation is provided,” as well as a prohibition on the 

division of salaries or subletting of duties by any employee 

of the House.179 Th ese regulations preceded the creation of 

the Committee on House Administration, being adopted 

simultaneously on March 3, 1901, with the passage of the 

legislative, executive, and judicial act. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 173

Th e action came about during a period of intense allegations in the press of inappropriate employment practices in 

the House.180 A special committee was appointed to investigate these claims pursuant to H.Res. 429, which was agreed 

to in the House on February, 23, 1901. Due to the impending 

close of the session, which was scheduled for March 3, the 

resolution required this special committee to make a report 

within six days of its appointment. It heard testimony from 

February 25 through 27 and examined conditions pertaining to 357 employees, including clerks and messengers to 

committees, but excluding Members’ clerks. Th e subsequent 

report noted that while many of these employees were technically working for House Offi cers, the Offi cers had little voice 

in their selection, which instead owed more to the recommendation and continued support of various Members, largely 

from the majority party. Th e committee found instances of 

the wholesale transfer of employees from the duties to which 

they were appointed to other duties, the payment of compensation to employees while they were absent for extended 

periods or without excuse, and the division of salaries among 

employees. 

Th e committee stated that the fi rst irregularity resulted 

“in part, at least, from an attempt to adjust salaries so as to 

satisfy the members that their appointees obtain a just share of 

the whole appropriation, instead of attempting to apportion 

the compensation to the merits of the respective employees 

and the character of the services which they render.”181 Th e 

committee then went on to cite, for example, the case of an 

employee holding the place of the House telegrapher who 

never actually performed the duties of that position, instead 

serving in the stationary room and then the House library. 

It also found that employees were sometimes absent when 

their services were needed and suggested that overall recordkeeping in this area was lacking. Regarding the last charge, 

the committee found that more positions, or positions with 

higher salaries, were promised than were provided by law. 

Although unable to ascertain how this occurred, the special committee described a system “whereby the employees 

agreed to contribute greater or less portions of the salaries 

they received for the purpose either of paying persons not 

on the roll or of increasing the compensation of persons who 

were on the roll.”182

Proposed remedies and recommendations of the special 

committee were then quickly incorporated into the pending 

legislative, executive, and judicial appropriations measure 

by the conferees after both chambers agreed to a resolution 

authorizing them to “include in their report such alterations, 

changes, and recommendations as they may deem proper” 

in this area.183 Th e act became law on March 3, 1901. In 

addition to prohibitions on the division of salary or subletting of duties, the act called for monthly certifi cations by 

each offi cer of the House that the persons on their respective 

payrolls “have been actually present at their respective places 

of duty and have actually performed the services for which 

compensation is provided in said pay rolls” with any absence 

stated.184 It also authorized the Committee on Accounts, a 

predecessor of the Committee on House Administration, to 

inquire into the enforcement of the law. Th e act also deemed 

violation of these provisions a cause for removal from offi ce.

While some of the corresponding provisions in the U.S. 

Code were repealed in 1996, others remain or are covered in 

other sections, and the House Rule pertaining to the Code of 

Offi cial Conduct continues to have a clause stipulating that 

a “Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or offi cer of 

the House may not retain an employee who does not perform 

duties for the offi ces of the employing authority commensurate with the compensation he receives.”185 Th e Committee 

on House Administration, with authority under the Rules for 

matters pertaining to employment of persons by the House, 

could investigate or examine any issue in this area. 

Nepotism. Th e hiring and promotion of certain federal 

employees, and allegations of confl icts of interest, has been a 

popular topic in the press for many decades. Th is was especially true prior to 1967, when a sweeping anti-nepotism law 

imposed restrictions on whom Members of Congress and 

other public offi cials could appoint to public positions. 

Until the enactment of this reform, Members had near 

total discretion in choosing their own employees. Although 

the question of nepotism was not new, in the early 1950s, 

journalists attempted to uncover the number of Members of 
174 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the House employing relatives in their personal offi ces with 

offi cial funds.186 A series of resolutions aiming to prohibit such 

employment were soon introduced and referred to the Committee. Th ese resolutions proposed such reforms as requiring 

Members to fi le with the Clerk a statement on each individual 

employed by them who was a relation or with whom they had 

business connections and the duties (including hours and 

location) of employees. Th e proposals also called for ensuring 

public access either in Washington, DC, or through public 

prints. Th e Subcommittee on Accounts examined the issue, 

holding hearings on April 27 and August 5, 1959. At the 

earlier hearing, Wayne Hays criticized the resolutions for not 

covering other entities, asking of sponsor John Henderson of 

Ohio, “you do not think that members of Congress are any 

worse at the business of putting relatives on the payroll than 

heads of corporations or heads of executive departments, do 

you?”187 Hays also noted that the resolution did nothing to 

remedy employment practices in the Senate and executive 

branch, nor did it impose penalties on those who violated 

the prohibition or address other potential fi nancial confl icts 

of interest.188

At the latter hearing, resolution sponsor and Committee member Robert Ashmore of South Carolina said that he 

did not necessarily criticize all Members who hired family 

and admitted that some of these staff worked hard. He did 

state, however, his opinion that “it is better to go ahead and 

reveal it all, there it is, and let the people determine whether 

or not they approve.”189 Questioning the propriety and cost 

of printing lists of employees when they were available in the 

disbursing offi ce, and again defending the professional eff orts 

of many of the employees in question, the Committee took 

no further action on these resolutions.

Th e public furor did not subside, and the following year 

Vance Trimble of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance 

was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the issue. 

Neal Smith of Iowa then began a multi-year eff ort to attach 

anti-nepotism language to various pieces of legislation. Th e 

Subcommittee on Accounts examined the issue in a hearing 

on May 19, 1965. During this hearing, the Subcommittee 

considered H.Res. 333, which proposed to prohibit compensation to any person employed by a Member if that person 

falls into one of seven specifi ed categories of relation. John 

Ashbrook of Ohio, the sponsor of the legislation, indicated 

his belief that the move to prevent this employment is “not a 

question of competence. It is just a question of deteriorating 

public image of the Congress. Th is is one way that we can, in 

my humble opinion, indicate that we really have not the crows 

guarding the corn, that we really are interested in giving the 

taxpayer a fair shake.”190

Discussion covered certain alleged abuses that tarnished 

the reputation of the Congress as well as the prevalence of 

nepotism in other areas of the government, although no 

further action was taken on this resolution. Press coverage by 

Trimble, Jack Anderson, and others continued until Smith 

finally succeeded in adding anti-nepotism language that 

would apply government-wide to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967.191 Th e language specifi ed the numerous relations employing offi cials had to exclude when hiring 

staff . Provisions were made to permit those already employed, 

as well as any future employee who experiences a change in 

relational status to an employer, to remain in their positions. 

Excepted employees cannot, however, receive promotions.

Th e Committee currently includes provisions concerning the employment of relatives within the Members’ and 

committee handbooks. Th e handbooks also indicate that 

every employee must certify his or her relationship to any 

Member of Congress on a special form available from Human 

Resources, while changes must be noted in amended forms. 

Further guidelines are included in the Rules of the House and 

the House Ethics Manual.

192

Employment Standards: Th e Congressional Accountability Act. Bills to reform employment practices in the 

House periodically were introduced throughout the 1970s 

and 1980s. Th ese were generally referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, although other committees also 

showed interested in this area, especially when the proposals 

contained broader internal changes or aff ected both the judicial and legislative branches. Aiming to improve the condition 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 175

of congressional employees or respond to calls for Congress 

to abide by the laws it created for the executive branch and 

private sector, many of these bills were not acted but did 

serve to further debate in this area. Occasionally paired with 

judicial employment reform, reform in Congress required a 

resolution to concerns about the separation of powers and 

the need to conform to the speech and debate clause of the 

Constitution, which grants Members of Congress immunity 

for their legislative acts.

Th e Rules for the 94th Congress included a clause providing that “a Member, offi cer, or employee of the House 

of Representatives shall not discharge or refuse to hire any 

individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual 

with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges 

of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”193 Th e 1977 Commission on 

Administrative Review, led by David Obey of Wisconsin 

included a recommendation for (1) a redesigned personnel 

offi ce that could work to increase employment opportunities 

for women, minorities, the physically challenged, and the 

elderly and “report annually on progress toward relieving pay 

diff erentials between white males and women and minorities;” (2) expanded protection under the House Rules to 

include age and physical handicaps; (3) a grievance procedure 

for employees of the administrative offi ces; (4) the creation of 

a Fair Employment Practices panel comprised of Members; 

(5) authorization for the reimbursement of education and 

training expenses from the offi cial allowances; and (6) provision for maternity and disability pay.194

Th e Rules were amended in the 100th Congress (1987–

1988) to prohibit discrimination based on age. Th at Congress 

also saw signifi cant action in the area of House employment 

by the Committee. Th e Subcommittee on Personnel and 

Police, which according to the Committee’s activity report 

focused during that Congress on “developing basic civil rights 

protections for employees of the House of Representatives” 

instituted an “Adverse Action Review Procedures” adopted 

by the full Committee in March 1988. Th is procedure aimed 

to provide due process to employees of House offi cers who 

were terminated, suspended, or demoted. Th e review was 

to include a hearing with the officer, a written decision, 

and an appeals process. Th is procedure, however, did not 

silence all adverse publicity about wages and discrimination 

in the House, as well as the need for civil rights protection 

for House employees. More legislation on this topic, including H.R.4576, H.R.4821, H.R.5060, and H.Res.445 (100th 

Congress), was introduced and referred to the Committee.

 On August 10, 1988, the Subcommittee on Personnel 

and Police, chaired by Leon Panetta of California, met to hear 

testimony on House personnel policies. Incorporating ideas 

from this and other discussions, H.Res. 558 was introduced 

by Representative Panetta on September 29, 1988, with the 

cosponsorship of the Majority and Minority Leaders, the 

Committee leadership, and other Members who had been 

active on the issue. On October 4, 1988, the House agreed to 

the resolution, which applied basic civil rights protection for 

House employees and established the Offi ce of Fair Employment Practices to investigate allegations of discrimination. 

Th e employees of the offi ce worked under the Clerk of the 

House, but were appointed by the chairman and ranking 

member of the Committee on House Administration. Th e 

measure also provided for a panel of eight individuals (including four from the Committee on House Administration) to 

review the decisions of the Fair Employment Offi ce.195 Th e 

House Rules were again amended the following Congress to 

incorporate anti-discrimination measures. Th e Subcommittee on Personnel and Police also created four staff positions 

within the Offi ce of Fair Employment Practices.196

During the 102nd and 103rd Congress (1991–1994), several measures applying to Congress the same federal employment and labor laws that apply to private sector corporations 

and businesses were referred to the Committee and its Subcommittee on Personnel and Police as well as to the House 

Rules Committee.197 Also included in some of the proposals 

was the establishment of an Offi ce of Compliance within 

the Legislative Branch. Th e Committee held hearings on 

Congressional compliance on June 14 and 30, 1994. In July, 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
176 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

gave the full Committee a presentation on the application of 

OSHA provisions in the pending measures.198 On July 28, 

1994, the Committee marked up and favorably reported H.R. 

4822 by a vote of 19-0.

The Committee filed a report on August 2.199

Although the House passed H.R. 4822 on August 10, 

1994 with a vote of 427 to 4, the measure was never considered on the Senate fl oor. On October 7, 1994, the House 

adopted H.Res. 578, amending House rules to include 

much of the language in the House-passed version of H.R. 

4822. Final action would not come until the next Congress, when the Congressional Accountability Act was 

signed into law in January 1995.

Although the congressional accountability measure did 

not become law during this Congress, the Committee made 

signifi cant contributions to the eventual Act through its views 

with respect to the enforcement functions of the proposed 

Offi ce of Compliance. In its report, the Committee, citing 

separation of powers concerns, expressed strong views clearly 

rejecting the notion of, and arguments for, Executive Branch 

enforcement of these laws against the Legislative Branch. 

Specifi cally, the Committee noted its concern that “an Executive Branch provided with such enforcement powers might 

abuse them to the detriment of the Legislative Branch’s independence and authority. Th e Legislative Branch must be free 

from Executive Branch intimidation—real or perceived—in 

the execution of its Constitutional role as a co-equal branch 

of the federal government.”200

Another signifi cant contribution were the Committee’s 

views with respect to the exclusion of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)201 and the Privacy Act202 from among the 

laws the legislative branch would be required to comply with. 

Instead of including these laws among those that would apply 

to the Legislative Branch, the Committee adopted a provision 

that required the Offi ce of Compliance to conduct a study to 

determine ways in which access to public information possessed by Congress could be improved.203 While recognizing 

that more should be done to improve public access to legislative information, according to the Committee, FOIA:

is not an employee protection or anti-discrimination law like the others to be applied by the Congressional Accountability Act. FOIA was designed 

specifi cally for the Executive Branch and may be a 

poor fi t for the Legislative Branch because the Legislative Branch already makes a wide array of information available to the public and media. Lastly, the 

existing exemptions in FOIA ... if analogized to the 

Legislative Branch, would seem to exempt much of 

its operations—information in Member offi ces and 

information related to the “pre-decisional” (prior 

to enactment) phase of the legislative process, for 

instance. Much of this type of pre-decisional information is currently made public.204

Consideration and Passage of the Congressional 

Accountability Act. Introduced as separate measures in the 

Senate (S.2) and the House (H.R.1) on January 4, 1995, the 

resulting Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) 

was the fi rst measure signed into law during the 104th Congress.205 Th e CAA originally applied eleven civil rights, labor, 

and workplace laws to employees of the legislative branch and 

establishes remedies and procedures for aggrieved employees 

in instances of violations of those laws.206 In addition, the 

CAA also established an Offi ce of Compliance within the 

legislative branch, which is headed by a fi ve-member Board 

of Directors. Noting the quick congressional action that 

month, House sponsor Christopher Shays of Connecticut 

commended the previous Congress for its study, deliberation, 

committee hearings, and committee reports, and specifi cally 

mentioned the eff orts of the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Committee on House Administration 

and the Rules Committee on H.R. 4822 (103rd Congress) in 

remarks on the House fl oor.207

Th e Committee quickly moved to educate the chamber on the impact of the new legislation by participating in 

explanatory seminars, issuing “Dear Colleague” letters, and 

developing a model employee handbook and other materials to assist offices in complying with new requirements. 

Th e Committee also monitored and reviewed the adoption 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 177

of regulations proposed by the Offi ce of Compliance, with 

Chairman Bill Th omas introducing a number of resolutions 

off ering provisional approval or directing the adoption of 

further regulations.208 Th rough its oversight of House offi cers, 

the Committee also worked to reform the chamber’s internal 

structure to facilitate compliance. It approved, for example, 

the established the Offi ce of House Employment Counsel, to 

be administered by the Clerk under the bipartisan direction of 

the Committee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

and the Offi ce of ADA Services, under the Chief Administrative Offi cer. Th e House also agreed to a resolution on 

April 16, 1996, introduced by Chairman Th omas, requiring 

employing offi ces to obtain prior approval from the chairman 

and the ranking minority party member of the Committee 

regarding any settlement payment under the act, a sentiment 

incorporated into the House Rules for the 105th Congress.209

Subsequent Actions. In subsequent Congresses, the 

Committee continued to monitor implementation of the 

Act, provide oversight for the offi ce, and evaluate resources 

available to it and House employing offi ces. It held an oversight hearing on March 19, 1997, and considered proposals 

to amend the Act. In 1998, the Congressional Accountability 

Act was amended to include select provisions of the Veterans 

Employment Opportunities Act.210

Th e Board of Directors, Proposed Rules and Rulemaking. Th e Committee was involved in the organization 

of the fi rst Board of Directors of the offi ce and monitored the 

transition of new board appointees. Pursuant to legislation 

introduced by Chairman Bob Ney on September 22, 2004, 

which became law on October 21, 2004, the Board of Directors of the Offi ce of Compliance are now permitted to serve 

for two terms.211 On September 18, 2007, Chairman Robert 

Brady introduced a bill, H.R. 3571, permitting previous 

Offi ce of Compliance employees to serve as Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, or General Counsel of the 

Offi ce. Since most individuals who have been employed by 

the legislative branch in the previous four years are ineligible 

for these offi ces, this legislation allows for internal promotions 

within the Offi ce of Compliance. Th e legislation also allows 

persons appointed to these positions to serve one additional 

term. Th e bill became law later that year.212

Th e Act provides a role for congressional stakeholders 

in its implementation by requiring the Board to transmit 

notices of proposed rulemaking for procedures and substantive regulation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in 

the Congressional Record.

213 A comment period of at least 30 

days is required. Th e Committee, along with other interested 

parties in the House and Senate, has since remained involved 

with the rulemaking process by submitting comments on 

proposed amendments to the Office of Compliance. For 

example, in response to notices placed in the Record, Chairman Bob Ney and Ranking Member John Larson forwarded 

letters on October 6, 2003, and March 29, 2004, indicating 

the Committee’s opinion on proposed changes to the Offi ce’s 

procedural rules. During the 111th Congress, the Committee 

consulted with the Clerk’s Offi ce of the House Employment 

Counsel regarding proposed regulations issued by the Offi ce 

of Compliance for implementing the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (VEOA) and the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

In December 2010, Chairman Brady introduced a resolution (H.Res. 1757) providing for the approval of the VEOA 

regulations that apply to the House of Representatives and 

employees of the House of Representatives. Th is resolution, 

along with a technical correction (H.Res. 1783), was agreed 

to in the House.

Leave and Other Personnel Policies. Members and 

committees determine their own annual and sick leave policies, subject to applicable House Rules and federal laws. 

Th e handbooks printed by the Committee, as well as advice 

provided by Committee staff and the House Employment 

Counsel, inform Members and committees about these regulations, including the Family and Medical Leave Act. Th e 

Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 extended to eligible 

employees of the House coverage under section 202 of this 

act, entitling them to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid family and medical leave during a 12-month period.
178 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Telecommuting. The Committee considered and 

approved a telecommuting policy on October 21, 1999.214

Telecommuting, which was defi ned by the Committee as “a 

working arrangement, mutually agreed upon by the employee 

and the employing offi ce, whereby the employee works at an 

alternative work site on specifi ed days and/or for specifi ed 

hours,” had been a topic of interest in the federal workplace 

for some time.215 Supporters have cited the potential environmental and personal benefi ts of working at an alternative 

site close to or in an employee’s home, as well as the increased 

feasibility of telework in the electronic age.

In anticipation of the policy, a provision then included in 

the Rules requiring House employees to perform duties commensurate with the compensation received “in the offi ces of 

the employing authority” was modifi ed to permit telework.216

In approving the policy, the Committee emphasized that 

the implementation of a telecommuting program is entirely 

at the discretion of the employing offi ces. Th e Committee 

imposed certain restrictions—for example, by stating that 

the “alternative work site may not be a political, campaign, or 

commercial offi ce.”217 It also addressed security concerns and 

made expenses associated with telecommuting reimbursable.

Telework took on new signifi cance in terms of congressional emergency preparedness and continuity of operations 

after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the discovery of anthrax spores in the Hart Senate Offi ce Building 

in October, 2001. Th e latter required Members of both chambers, committees, and staff to temporarily vacate portions of 

the Capitol complex for anthrax testing and decontamination. Responding to the challenges highlighted by this situation, the House managers of the conference on the FY2002 

Legislative Branch Appropriations bill inserted language into 

the conference report urging the House offi cers to develop 

a means of providing permanent remote access to House 

computer systems and requiring the Chief Administrative 

Offi cer to report to the Committee on Appropriations and the 

Committee on House Administration progress in this area.218

Accessibility. Th e passage of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995 made the House of Representatives subject 

to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Th e 

Committee has periodically monitored compliance with this 

act within the House, addressing the issue during hearings 

evaluating progress on the 15th anniversary of the passage of 

the ADA and in the response to an evacuation on May 11, 

2005 prompted by a Cessna that entered restricted airspace 

above Washington, DC, after the pilots became lost.219 In his 

opening remarks for the earlier hearing, Chairman Robert 

Ney underscored the importance of accessibility both in 

emergency situations and for daily operations, stating:220

When we talk about accessibility, my perspective is 

that a facility isn’t truly accessible unless it is accessible to everyone, especially an important institution 

like ours, where all people must be able to access 

their elected Representative on issues aff ecting the 

citizenry of the United States and, frankly, issues 

aff ecting people around the world. When constituents visit their Members, they should have an easy 

time in doing so, regardless of their relative abilities. 

That must be the manner in which the people’s 

House operates.

Ranking Minority Member Juanita Millender-McDonald echoed this sentiment in her opening remarks, saying that: 

“In retrospect, it seems incredible that Congress did not cover 

itself from the start, but it did not . . . . In my view, accessibility means ensuring that everyone can enter the House facilities readily, conduct his or her business while there, whether 

it be for work or pleasure, and then leave the facility safely, 

especially in the event of a dire emergency or necessity.”221 

Th e Committee heard testimony from James R. Langevin 

of Rhode Island, the fi rst quadriplegic to serve in the House, 

as well as the congressional offi cials charged with ensuring 

accessibility and preparedness, including Chief of the Capitol 

Police, the Architect of the Capitol, and the House Chief 

Administrative Offi cer, and outside experts. 

Committee Staff

While some of the employment regulations overseen by the 

Committee apply to staff for both Members and committees, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 179

some areas apply solely or at least generally to committees. For 

example, the Committee has separately considered items such 

as committee staffi ng growth and salary structure, as well as 

the appropriate split of staffi ng resources between subcommittees and the full committee, the majority and minority 

interests. While the Committee’s employment rules generally 

apply to the whole House, separate regulations may apply to 

select committees, and the Committee on Appropriations.222

Staff Levels and Distinctions. A series of actions in 

Congress since 1947 has raised the number of employees 

initially authorized for each committee. Th e House formerly 

maintained a distinction between staff based on appointment 

authority. Statutory staff positions, were provided at a certain 

level for all committees (except Appropriations) and did not 

have to be authorized in the committee funding resolutions. 

Th ese positions were supplemented with staff employed pursuant to the approval of additional funding resolutions and 

commonly referred to as investigative staff . Th e distinction 

was eliminated during the 104th Congress (1995–1996).

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 authorized 

each committee to appoint up to 10 statutory staff members.223

Th ese positions were to be divided, with six for clerical staff and 

four designated for professional staff . In the 1970s, increased 

distrust of the executive as well as a movement to reform the 

House propelled a further expansion of committee staff allowances. Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 increased 

the number of professional positions, raising the total statutory 

staff for each committee to 12. Th e number was again modifi ed 

in 1974 with the passage of the Committee Reform Amendments, which increased the overall number of statutory staff 

to 30, with 18 slots stipulated for professional staff ers with the 

remainder being fi lled by clerical staff .

Th e distinction in the duties of clerical and professional 

staff was blurred on many committees and eventually eliminated altogether when the House adopted its Rules for the 

104th Congress. Another change to the Rules adopted at that 

time also eff ectively eliminated the distinction between statutory and investigative staff by requiring that the committee 

funding resolutions contain funds for all committee staff . Th e 

committees continue to have a baseline of 30 staff , although 

additional staff may be employed at levels set for each committee by the Speaker.

After nearly tripling in size in the 1970s as the result of 

new legislation and leveling off in the 1980s, House committee employment began to decrease in the early 1990s.224

Th e overall number of committee staff employed by the 

House was of frequent concern to the House as well as 

outside observers. Th e Committee, through its oversight 

of committee budgets, has been responsible for monitoring 

the allocation of funds for committee staff s. Over the years, 

the Committee has taken numerous additional actions to 

examine the staffi ng levels and slow their growth or even 

reduce overall numbers. 

Following a mandate for a four percent decrease in fulltime equivalent employees in the FY1994 Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act, for example, the Committee worked to 

ensure the implementation of this requirement, focusing on 

committee staff levels in particular.225 As reported by Roll 

Call on April 28, 1994:

In a rare move, the House Administration Committee is negotiating the distribution of staff positions among 19 House committees in order to avoid 

requiring Members to cut staff in their personal 

offices to comply with a House-wide personnel 

reduction plan.

House Administration began talks this month with 

staff directors to distribute available staff slots to 

those panels whose workloads are the greatest while 

asking less busy committees to remain frozen at 

current levels.

More severe cuts soon followed. In the 104th Congress, 

the new Republican majority promised to decrease the total 

number of staff of House committees in keeping with its 

campaign platform. Th e Committee quickly moved to make 

this promise a reality through its scrutiny of the committee 

funding process, and its report for that Congress indicates 

that it saved “over $60 million in taxpayer dollars through 
180 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

reduced committee funding levels and mandating 1/3 fewer 

House committee staff , abolishing over 600 positions.”226

Additional Staff by Resolution. During its early 

decades, the Committee occasionally reported resolutions 

approving additional statutory employees for certain committees.227 As opposed to staffi ng funded through additional 

funding resolutions and requiring annual justifi cation, these 

resolutions contained language granting indefi nite authorization and were frequently made permanent in subsequent acts. 

One of the earliest resolutions was reported on April 14, 1949, 

by Chairwoman Mary Norton of New Jersey. It authorized 

the Judiciary Committee “to employ one additional clerical assistant, to be assigned to handle legislation pertaining 

to private claims.”228 Th e resolution was agreed to on that 

date and made permanent on June 22, 1949.229 Th e Committee reported another resolution which was subsequently 

adopted providing for an additional two clerks for Judiciary 

the following year, stating in its report that: “Th e Committee on House Administration, having held a hearing on this 

resolution . . . is of the opinion that two additional clerks are 

necessary to handle the more than 1,000 private immigration 

bills and over 5,000 individual cases referred to the committee by the Attorney General.”230 Th e Committee continued 

to recommend similar expansions in dedicated resolutions 

through the 1960s. Committee staff s are now covered by the 

House Rules.

Th e jurisdiction of the Committee over these issues was 

reaffirmed during a 1966 episode. On February 7, Rules 

Committee Chairman Howard Smith of Virginia told the 

House that “House Resolution 640 was inadvertently referred 

to the Committee on Rules and it should be referred to the 

Committee on House Administration.”231 He asked unanimous consent that it be re-referred. Th e resolution, which 

provided an additional fi ve professional and three clerical 

employees, was considered and reported by the Committee 

before being approved by the House on February 9. 

Continuation of Committee Staff to the Next Congress. The authority of standing committees to approve 

the continued employment and compensation of their own 

employees in a new Congress from “the eff ective date of the 

beginning of each Congress, or such subsequent date as their 

service commenced” was stipulated in a resolution agreed 

to by the House on January 3, 1961, and incorporated into 

permanent law later that year.232 Th is action ended a question arising from the passage of the 1946 reorganization act 

that governed the appointment of committee employees. 

While not directly acted upon by the Committee on House 

Administration, it had important implications for House 

employment practice.

Similar resolutions concerning the authority to approve 

employment of House committee staff had been passed during the fi rst session of each Congress beginning in 1953. 

Th ese resolutions began after questions were raised regarding 

the authority of the House to compensate committee employees who worked in the 82nd Congress (1951–1952) prior to 

the election of the standing committees of the 83rd Congress 

(1953–1954), even if they were to continue in service, since 

the House is not a continuing body. Th e resolution agreed to 

on January 22, 1953, was off ered by Majority Leader Charles 

Halleck. It granted authority to standing committees to 

approve employment and compensation retroactive to January 3, which is the date that the terms of offi ce of Members 

began under the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.233

After the resolution was agreed to, Clare Hoff man of 

Michigan indicated that he had intended to off er a more 

comprehensive resolution. Hoff man detailed his correspondence with Acting Comptroller General Frank Yates on the 

legality of compensation disbursed to committee employees 

after the end of one Congress but before the appointment 

of committees for the following Congress. Yates indicated 

that “from noon on January 3 until such time as a new 

committee is elected by the Eighty-third Congress there is 

no committee in legal existence” and “since the question [of 

compensation] is not entirely free from doubt, the House 

may wish to consider taking action specifi cally providing 

for payment to employees of standing committees of the 

Eighty-second Congress” before providing drafts of three 

possible remedies.234
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 181

Interim Funding for Investigative Staff Compensation. Interim funding for committees, the development of 

which is described in the committee funding section, held 

particular importance during the years prior to 1995 when 

committees maintained a distinction between statutory and 

investigative staff . Th e salaries of the statutory employees were 

provided for in the annual legislative branch appropriations 

bills. Particularly after the House moved to verify the legality 

of the continued employment of holdover committee staff 

prior to the establishment of committees in a new Congress, 

the continued compensation of these employees was ensured. 

The investigative employees, however, were faced with a 

potential gap in employment as a new session of Congress 

commenced and they awaited the then-annual committee 

funding resolutions that provided their compensation. 

Th e Committee worked to remedy this issue, and on 

January 29, 1965, Subcommittee on Accounts Chairman 

Samuel Friedel called up a privileged resolution enabling the 

payment of holdover employees for 30 days at the same salary 

they enjoyed on the last day of the previous session upon the 

certifi cation of the chairmen of the appropriate committees 

that the employees performed services during this time.235

Similar resolutions, covering varying lengths of time, were 

considered and agreed to in subsequent years. In response to a 

question during the consideration of the 1973 resolution from 

Harold Royce Gross of Iowa on the ability of committees to 

use this funding to augment their staff s, Chairman Wayne 

Hays indicated that committees could only “fi ll vacancies but 

not add to” them.236 Th e provision of interim funding was 

made automatic with a Rules change in the 99th Congress 

(1985–1986). 

Majority and Minority: Staff Allocations. Th e fair 

and equitable allocation of staff among the majority and 

minority parties has been a controversial issue since the establishment of the modern committee staffi ng system in 1946. 

Th e Reorganization Act signed into law that year authorized 

committees to appoint, by a majority vote, professional and 

clerical staff “on a permanent basis without regard to political affi liations and solely on the basis of fi tness to perform 

the duties of offi ce.”237 Such staff were to be “assigned to the 

chairman and ranking minority member of such committee 

as the committee may deem advisable.” Th e Joint Committee 

on the Organization of Congress, in its recommendation for 

the authorization of four professional and six clerical staff , 

indicated its intention that two of the latter be attached to 

the chairman, ranking minority member, and professional 

staff of each committee.238

While some committees maintained a nonpartisan 

staff , staff for other committees was allocated according to 

informal agreements. Calls for additional minority staffi ng 

steadily increased in the House beginning in the late 1950s, 

especially after actions taken on the Senate fl oor by Senate Rules and Administration Ranking Minority Member 

Carl Curtis of Nebraska on January 30, 1957.239 Th is only 

increased in the early 1960s, and according to congressional staff observer Kenneth Kofmehl, “the start of the 87th 

Congress (1961–1962) saw the beginning of a campaign to 

obtain comparable action by the minority membership of the 

Committee on House Administration.”240 Pressure on these 

committee members only increased after the publication of 

an article by columnist Roscoe Drummond on February 

18, 1961, in which he wrote that “the Republican members 

of Congress are literally throwing away one of their most 

effective instruments of party strength” by not demanding additional and more competent staff and quoted a letter 

from Th omas Curtis of Missouri to House Minority Leader 

Charles Halleck urging more eff ort by the minority members 

of the Committee in this area.241

Paul Schenck of Ohio, the Ranking Minority Member on 

the Committee, took exception to the insinuation that he and 

his colleagues could be more eff ective in this area. Defending 

himself on the House fl oor on February 28, Schenk referenced 

the ongoing dialogue and reminded his colleagues that “the 

Committee on House Administration has no discretionary 

power in the naming of any member of any staff . . . the responsibility for naming members of the professional and clerical 

staff s of each committee is vested in the majority vote of the 

committee concerned.”242 Th e Committee, he stated, exerts 
182 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

infl uence the only way it can when it insists upon having both 

majority and minority representatives at the hearings on each 

committee’s budget request. 

A lengthy discussion followed on staff services as the 

House proceeded to consider the separate resolutions providing for the studies and investigations expenses of individual 

committees. Clare Hoff man of Michigan argued that: “there 

would appear to be no reason why committee employees 

should not be allocated to the majority in the same ration 

that the leadership has fi xes as to the representation on regular 

standing committees, that is, the 6-to-4 ratio.”243 Committee 

on House Administration member John Kyl questioned the 

minority staffi ng on the Committee on Public Works before 

then-Majority Leader John W. McCormack indicated his 

belief that:

there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the 

makeup of the staff s of the committees. Reference is 

made as to what the minority has and the assumption is that everybody who is not directly identifi ed 

as a minority member of the staff is a Democrat. 

I do not think this is correct. Most of these staff s 

continue from Congress to Congress. Th e chairman 

of the committee wants to have a staff composed of 

people who understand government and the business of the committee.244

McCormack cites his own experience employing a 

staff er for a Committee on Government Operations subcommittee he chaired who had previously worked for one 

of the subcommittees when the other party was in control. 

“I am not even drawing an inference from that,” he said, 

“but the probability is that he is a Republican, although, as 

I say, I do not know and furthermore I am not interested 

in knowing.”245

Th e debate over the allocation of committee employees 

grew more heated two years later during the committee 

and fl oor consideration of the 1963 funding resolutions 

and included many prominent voices on both sides. Th e 

Committee defeated an attempt to increase staffi ng for the 

minority. Describing the action of the minority in the Committee as “not revolutionary” or even a partisan concern, 

John Kyl told his House colleagues that they were merely 

attempting to enforce the rules and ensure adequate staff -

ing for committee members. He admitted that “perhaps the 

technique we have selected to secure adequate staff assistance is not the most feasible or proper. At the present time, 

it is the only alternative aff orded.”246

Th is route, however, is exactly what some of the other 

members of the Committee took issue with. Chairman Omar 

Burleson told the House that he had “disagreed with the 

method, leaving less emphasis on the merits of this proposition. Th e better procedure would be to introduce a resolution, 

have it referred to the Rules Committee and if cleared for 

fl oor action, that it be brought here for debate on the direct 

issues and not presented as an amendment to an appropriations resolutions.”247 Burleson also included in the Record a 

lengthy analysis of the merits of the issue written by House 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler. Former 

Committee on House Administration member and thenMajority Leader Carl Albert of Oklahoma also weighed in, 

articulating on popular arguments that included (1) emphasizing the nonpartisan language contained in the Legislative 

Reorganization Act; (2) reminding the House that a number 

of employees appointed by Republicans were maintained 

on the rolls during the Democratic rule; (3) questioning the 

practicality of minority employees since each committee 

consisted of both partisan and ideological minorities, the 

latter of which could change across issues and bills; (4) stressing the idea that any signifi cant split would be “unworkable 

and impracticable” since it would divide the staff , increasing 

partisanship and possibly even patronage; (5) emphasizing 

the responsibility of the chairman for his committee; and (6) 

expressing a recognition of some problems in implementation 

of the current system but a desire to address those concerns 

rather than abandon them.248

Th ese arguments were countered by Republicans including Minority Leader Charles Halleck of Indiana, who noted 

that he also had served on the Committee on House AdminBEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 183

istration. While recognizing that some committees were 

functioning adequately, he argued that what the minority 

really desired was staff they could turn to with confi dential 

matters. He referenced a subcommittee of the Republican 

Conference which had been working to increase minority 

staffi ng. Th is eff ort was led by Fred Schwengel of Iowa, who 

would later join the Committee and spoke on behalf of legislation he proposed to alter the staffi ng situation. Despite the 

lack of legislative action in this area at this time, some relief 

was apparent, and Gerald Ford of Michigan complimented 

the Accounts Subcommittee for its hearings and declared 

that “the record shows that because the hearings were in 

greater depth there has been substantial progress made in the 

number of positions available to the minority.”249 Ranking 

Minority Member Paul Schenck, who had noted the minority’s failed attempts to amend the resolutions in Committee, 

concludes the funding debate by thanking Burleson and 

Albert “when they indicate to the House that the majority 

party does assume and will assume the responsibility for the 

proper administration of these various staffi ng questions.”250

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 increased the 

number of professional statutory staff for each committee to 

six, and stipulated that two could be selected by the minority 

upon the request of a majority of the minority members.251

Th e minority could select one clerical staff er, provided that 

staff er was acceptable to a majority of the committee. Th e act 

also guaranteed equal treatment in pay, facilities, and access 

to committee records. 

Th e act included a provision allowing for one-third of the 

investigative funds for the minority upon their request. Th is 

provision was off ered as an amendment on the fl oor by Frank 

Th ompson, a majority party Committee member from New 

Jersey, on July 15.252 A lengthy debate ensued and continued 

the following day, with a number of the members of the Committee sharing observations gained from their work on the 

Committee. Th e amendment was agreed to on July 16, 1970, 

and included in the act that became law on October 26. Th e 

following year, however, House Rules were amended to state 

that the “minority party on any such standing committee is 

entitled to and shall receive fair consideration in the appointment of committee staff personnel pursuant to each such 

primary or additional expense resolution.”253

Th e Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, which 

were agreed to on October 8, expanded the statutory staff 

authorization of each committee to 30.254 Th is included 18 

professional and 12 clerical staff , with six and four of those 

staff , respectively, designated for selection by the minority 

upon their request and subject to the approval of the majority 

of the committee. Th e requirement that professional staff be 

appointed without regard to political affi liation was eliminated. Th e minority was also entitled under this legislation 

to one-third of the staff funds provided in any primary or 

additional expense resolution. Th e Rules adopted the following year for the 94th Congress (1975–1976) eliminated 

this guarantee, but did include a new provision authorizing 

subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members to 

each appoint one staff person,255 an authority that existed 

until the 104th Congress (1995–1996).

In the years after the passage of this new legislation, the 

Committee would frequently hear calls for more resources 

for minority employees. During the 103rd Congress (1993–

1994), for example, Republican members attempted to aff ect 

staffi ng provisions during a markup in the Subcommittee 

on Accounts. Roll Call quoted then-Committee member 

John Boehner of Ohio as saying: “We still have some committee chairmen who dominate and decide how money is 

spent for the minority,” and are attempting to secure 25% of 

investigative funds for the ranking minority member of each 

committee.256 Th e same article indicated that Committee 

member “Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan) off ered an amendment 

to cut by 10 percent the funds of committees that failed to 

allocate 25 percent of their resources to the minority.”257

Upon taking control of the House in 1995, the Republicans 

stated their goal of providing one-third of committee funds 

to the minority. After initial disagreements over the funding 

resolutions, staff positions, and the use of the reserve fund, 

a more bipartisan consensus was achieved beginning in the 

107th Congress (2001–2002).258
184 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee Staffi ng. Beginning in the 94th Congress (1975–1976), the chairman and ranking minority member of each standing subcommittee was authorized to appoint 

one staff member to serve at his or her pleasure.259 In an eff ort 

to reassert the primacy of committees over their subcommittees and strengthen the power of the chair over the committee staff , this requirement was eliminated during the 104th

Congress (1995–1996) and replaced with the requirement 

that the chair ensure that the subcommittees have suffi cient 

staff to engage in their responsibilities.260

Select Committee Staffi ng. Select committees have 

long been subject to diff erent staffi ng procedures than standing committees. All committees must obtain their spending 

allocations through primary and additional expense resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration. 

Th e funding diff erences were more signifi cant prior to the 

elimination of the distinction between statutory and investigative staff in 1995, because select committees were precluded 

from obtaining the former and had to rely on resolutions 

providing the latter. Select committees are also exempt from 

rules pertaining to minority staffi ng. Detailees and consultants have assisted select committees in the past, subject to 

the regulations of the Committee on House Administration. 

Staffi ng provisions—including authority to utilize the staff s 

of those committees from which Members have been selected 

for membership on the select committee, to hire and terminate additional staff , and to establish salaries for staff within 

certain limitations—were also frequently included in the 

administrative section of the resolutions reported by the Rules 

Committee establishing the select committees.261

Oversight of Contractors, Consultants, and 

Detailees. Over the years, House committees have benefi tted from the expertise of contractors and consultants, as 

well as detailees from government agencies. Members do not 

share this benefi t: the Members’ Handbook compiled by the 

Committee specifi es that they may not accept detailees or 

consultants, and may enter into short-term contracts only for 

“general, non-legislative, offi ce services.”262 Th e Committee 

remains actively involved in approving and overseeing the 

procurement of both governmental and non-governmental 

temporary assistance for committees.

Th e procedure by which House committees may receive 

temporary assistance from experts detailed from any government agency was established by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Written permission from the Committee 

is required for a detail.263 A detail agreement cannot exceed 

12 months, although extensions have been permitted. Th e 

Committee requires documentation from the requesting 

committee chair, the agency or department head, and any 

reimbursement agreements. 

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 formalized 

the procedure by which the House committees may procure 

temporary assistance or outside contractors and consultants, 

although agreements for such services had been approved for 

many years. Th e act specifi ed that committees are permitted to procure services with respect to any matter within 

its jurisdiction. It also placed limits on their compensation, 

and, as with detailees, a 12 month limitation was imposed.264

Along with their request for approval, committees were also 

required to submit to the Committee “information bearing 

on the qualifi cations of each consultant whose services are 

procured,” and stipulated that “such information shall be 

retained by that committee and shall be made available for 

public inspection upon request.”265

During the 104th Congress (1995–1996), the House of 

Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act changed the approval procedure for certain nonHouse employment activities. When reporting the bill on 

March 14, 1996, the Committee indicated that it included 

a change “allowing committee chairmen to approve staff 

training and removing the requirement that the committee 

funding resolution specify the maximum amount allowable 

for staff training and consultants” and stipulating instead 

that “such limitations will depend on Committee on House 

Oversight [now House Administration] regulations.”266 Th e 

following Congress, in an eff ort to clarify its intentions and 

increase accountability for committee funding, the Committee agreed to alter the detailee policy by voice vote. Th e new 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 185

policy indicated that reimbursement would be required for 

detailees from the Government Printing Offi ce, and the number of non-reimburseable detailees was required to remain 

below 10% of the committee staff ceiling.

Since its creation, the Committee has exercised its jurisdiction over detailees, contractors, and consultants through 

diff erent organizational structures. During the 87th Congress (1961–1962) the Special Subcommittee on Contracts 

was established to oversee committee requests for consultants as requests for such services increased dramatically. 

Th e Subcommittee, which was reauthorized the following 

Congress was charged with reviewing all requests, and 

no contracts could be paid without its authorization. Th e 

89th Congress (1965–1966) saw the Special Subcommittee 

becoming increasing involved in the allegations against Adam 

Clayton Powell of New York involving the alleged misuse of 

funds by the Committee on Education and Labor, which he 

chaired. Th e following Congress, Chairman Wayne Hays 

announced to the House that the Committee had voted to 

establish a Permanent Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts 

to incorporate a role he claimed was the “business and duty 

of the Committee on House Administration.”267 Th at new 

Subcommittee was short-lived, and a special subcommittee 

was once again established. It then enjoyed status as a standing subcommittee from the 93rd (1973–1974) until the 96th

Congress (1979–1980), until merging with the Subcommittee 

on Printing to become the Subcommittee on Contracts and 

Printing for the next two Congresses. Renamed the Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing for the 99th Congress 

(1985–1986), its responsibilities were transferred to the Subcommittee on Accounts for the 101st Congress (1989–1990) 

before all subcommittees were eliminated at the start of the 

104th Congress (1995–1996). 

Committee Business Hours. Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 stipulates that “professional staff members 

shall not engage in any work other than committee business 

and no other duties may be assigned to them.” Th is language 

was incorporated into the Rules of the House, and subsequently 

rephrased and amended in the Legislative Reorganization Act 

of 1970 and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Th e latter revised 

the Rule, according to the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, 

to “clarify that the existing prohibition against professional 

committee staff engaging in any work other than committee 

business applies only during congressional working hours.”268

Th e exceptions for certain committees, as noted above, were 

eliminated and replaced with language concerning associate 

and shared staff beginning with the 104th Congress.

Personal Staff

Size and Funding. Th e number of personal staff permitted 

each Member, and the related funds available to employ 

them, was a topic of great interest to many Members even 

before the creation of the Committee.269 Members were fi rst 

provided with an allowance for clerks in 1893.270 Th e funds 

were payable to the Members upon certifi cation that they had 

obligated the amount to their employees. Th e staff allowance 

was periodically adjusted until 1919, when it was replaced by 

a system allowing each Member to designate up to two clerks 

to be placed directly on the House rolls as employees, at a 

total annual rate of not more than $3,200. Th e salary allowance and clerk ceiling was periodically adjusted in the years 

prior to the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946 and the creation of the Committee on House Administration. Eff ective January 1, 1945, Members were provided 

$9,500 per year for a new clerk-hire “basic pay” system,271 and 

permitted up to six employees. In 1946, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress included in its report a 

recommendation that each Representative and Senator be 

“authorized to employ a high-caliber administrative assistant 

at an annual salary of $8,000 to assume nonlegislative duties 

now interfering with the proper study and consideration of 

national legislation.”272 Th is provision was not included in the 

law, although the Senate subsequently adopted its substance 

in the First Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1947, eventually eliminating any ceiling on the number of staff ers allowed 

and providing each Senator with an aggregate authorization 

in 1949.273

Inheriting this legacy, the Committee faced calls from 

Members for additional funds for assistance almost from its 
186 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

inception in 1947. Th e Subcommittee on Accounts heard 

from a number of these Members at a hearing on May 3, 1949 

and examined the arguments used to support an expansion, 

many of which would reappear over the years. At the hearing, 

Laurie Battle of Alabama stated his belief “that everybody in 

my District has got a typewriter and a stenographer because 

they are all writing me profusely,” and Th urmond Chatham 

of North Carolina spoke on behalf of an association of the 

newest Members of Congress, who supported an increase 

despite the objections of some of the more senior Members.274

Th e Subcommittee then discussed with Gordon Cranfi eld of New Jersey his troubles in covering staff pay out of 

funds then available, the diffi culty in retaining experienced 

staff , and the practice of some Members paying for additional 

assistance at their own expense. Th e discussion also revealed 

that the Committee was still attempting to determine its role 

in relation to the Appropriations Committee, as Chairman 

Th omas Stanley of Virginia questioned whether the increase 

would be best located within a defi ciency appropriations bill 

or a dedicated bill and indicated the other committee’s preference for the latter.275 Th e increase became law on June 23 

in an act focused on regulating the telephone, telegraph, and 

clerk-hire allowances of Members. Th e act raised the rate per 

Member to $12,500, although each employee was limited to 

a basic salary of $5,000.276

Th e number of allowable employees was revised in 1949, 

1954, 1955, and 1961, each time increasing the ceiling by 

one.277 Records in the National Archives from during this 

period indicate that the Committee considered tables detailing how many clerks each Member employed, the number 

of Members paying the maximum permissible salary to one 

employee, and the number not utilizing the entire clerk-hire 

allowance to them.278 In 1956, the House approved the practice of permitting one additional employee plus additional 

funds for those Members from districts with a constituency 

of 500,000 or more.279

Th e question of authorizing an administrative assistant 

repeatedly arose over the next few years. Following discussions 

in the 84th Congress (1955–1956) during which Members 

weighed the benefi ts of this assistance versus the potential 

objections of others who thought that might delegate too 

much power to staff , the Committee reported three bills during the 85th and 86th Congresses (1957–1960) supporting the 

creation of this position. Each contained language in the report 

indicating that “the Committee on House Administration, 

after numerous requests made in response to a questionnaire 

submitted on the subject, and in letters and personal contact 

concluded after due deliberation that there was an urgent need 

on the part of many Members of the House of Representatives 

for expert assistance not now provided.”280 No further action 

was taken, however, and the House continued to allocate funds 

and positions using its prior method.

Additional funds were provided along with each of these 

staffi ng revisions. Increases were accomplished usually either 

through resolution by the Committee on House Administration, provisions in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bills, 

or a combination with resolutions made permanent by the 

annual bills. Th e Committee continually had to balance its 

desire to provide necessary funds while remaining cognizant 

of political and economic considerations. Th ese considerations were evident in the hearing held March 14, 1961, when 

the Subcommittee on Accounts considered H. Res. 219 (87th

Congress), allowing each Member an additional $3,000 in 

basic pay along with provision for an additional employee 

than previously permitted. Chairman Samuel Friedel of 

Maryland indicated that he had spoken with the leadership 

of both parties, and although he “had two resolutions ready 

to introduce yesterday, one for $3,000 basic, and one for 

$3,500 basic,” he thought that the lower sum was the most 

they would support.281 During debate, Friedel reminded his 

colleagues that the money would remain unspent unless a 

Member specifi cally allocated it in an eff ort to placate concerns about diff ering workloads and district sizes.282

Similar adjustments, in resolutions reported by the 

Committee and agreed to by the House, provided one additional clerk for each Member in 1965, 1966, and 1969.283

On November 25, 1970, the Committee reported a resolution, H. Res. 1264, authorizing each Member three addiBEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 187

tional employees, bringing the total to 15 or 16 employees 

depending on district size.284 It also set a minimum gross 

per annum rate of $2,000 for any employee, a move Samuel 

Friedel told the House was necessary “to keep away these $1 

a year or other token-type employees” who otherwise might 

“be entitled to health and life insurance, plus retirement 

benefi ts out of proportion to their salaries.”285 Th e resolution 

was adopted on December 7, became eff ective the same date 

as the Legislative Reorganization Act, January 3, 1971, and 

was soon made permanent law.286

Th is action took place shortly after the House declined 

to address the issue directly in the Reorganization Act. Th e 

House Rules Committee and its Special Subcommittee on 

Legislative Reorganization had examined staffi ng issues in 

1969 and 1970 in preparing the reorganization bill, noting in its report that “the House permits higher salaries 

for committee staff than does the Senate, but the Senate 

permits higher salaries for its Members’ top offi ce staff 

than does the House,” leading to a “state of aff airs . . . both 

inequitable and obnoxious.”287 Th e report recommended 

equity for House Members’ personal staff as compared to 

a Senators as well as the formal designation of “Administrative Assistant” for the top employee. Andrew Jacobs of 

Indiana moved to strike this provision on the fl oor on September 16, prevailing after a debate concerning the relative 

duties of Congressmen and Senators, clerk-hire and salary 

adjustments, and committee jurisdiction involving Richard 

Bolling of Missouri, James Cleveland of New Hampshire, 

Harold Royce Gross of Iowa, H. Allen Smith of California 

and Wayne Hays of Ohio.288

In 1971, the Committee was given the authority to adjust 

certain allowances.289 Th e following year, the Committee 

recognized the need to end the practice of diff erential staff 

allowances and ceilings after the decennial census and in 

reaction to redistricting reforms required following Supreme 

Court rulings indicating that legislative districts should be 

approximately equal in size.290 Using its newly acquired power, 

the Committee moved to equalize clerk hire allowances by 

declaring that “eff ective March 1, 1972 . . . each Member, the 

Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and the Delegate 

from the District of Columbia shall be entitled to an annual 

clerk hire allowance of $157,092 for not to exceed 16 clerks.”291

Th e Committee subsequently issued another order eff ective 

May 1, 1973, increasing the annual clerk hire amount by 

$20,000 for those Members who chose to employ a research 

assistant in lieu of one of the 16 permitted slots, before revising 

this upward to 18 eff ective March 6, 1975.292

Th e 18-person limit has remained in eff ect ever since, 

although certain exceptions and reforms have been adopted. 

On July 20, 1979, John Brademas of Indiana, then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, rose to explain to 

his colleagues on the House floor a measure reported by 

the Committee.293 Th e resolution, he stated, retained the 18 

person limitation on staff members but provided exceptions 

for up to four part-time, temporary, or shared employees, 

interns, and employees on leave without pay, all without 

increasing the clerk-hire allowance. Over the objections of 

some Members who saw this measure as an attempt to pave 

the way for a future staff expansion, the resolution passed and 

became permanent law, before being repealed and replaced 

with the House of Representatives Administrative Reform 

Technical Corrections Act in 1996, which continued similar 

ceilings and exceptions.294

Members’ Representational Allowance and Its Predecessors. Th e Committee issued an order on August 3, 

1995, creating the Members’ Representational Allowance 

(MRA), eff ective September 1, 1995.295 Th is move combined 

the Clerk Hire Allowance, the Offi cial Expenses Allowance, 

and the Offi cial Mail Allowance, and came as a result of 

recommendations issued after the fi rst House audit, which 

was conducted by Price-Waterhouse. Th e House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act 

made this provision permanent law. Th e act also revised the 

1971 resolution granting the Committee authority to “fi x 

and adjust the amounts, terms, and conditions of, and other 

matters relating to, allowances of the House of Representatives” subject to certain conditions fi rst established in 1976.296

Speaking to his colleagues on the House fl oor on behalf of 
188 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the bill, Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan stated that 

the reform provides Members with authority to determine the 

manner in which they allocate the funds within these various 

accounts which are now combined into one account.297

Th e enhanced fl exibility followed upon years of oversight 

by the Committee of transfers aff ecting the clerk-hire allowance. Th e disbursement regulations for 1979, for example, 

indicate that the Committee permitted Members to transfer 

up to $15,000 from the clerk-hire allowance to the offi cial 

expense allowance.298 Th e Committee also issued an order 

in this area in 1983, allowing each Member to allocate up 

to $30,000 to transfer funds between the clerk hire and offi -

cial expense allowances, this time in either direction, with 

the provision that the monthly clerk hire disbursements not 

exceed ten percent of the total of that allowance. Th e limit 

was raised to $40,000 two years later, $50,000 in 1990, and 

$75,000 in 1991.299

Staffing for Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. Non-voting Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have occasionally received diff ering staffi ng authority 

than their House colleagues. In the early legislation from the 

Committee regarding staff allocations, Member was defi ned 

as any Representative, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.300

In 1972, Congress passed a bill authorizing the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands to elect a Delegate to 

represent them. Th e legislation specifi ed that the clerk hire 

allowance of these Delegates was to be set at 60 percent of 

that authorized for a Member, although other benefi ts, like 

compensation, were to be equal.301 The Committee was 

guided by this legislation when considering subsequent 

staff adjustments. Committee Order 16, which on March 

6, 1975, raised the ceiling for Members, the Resident Commissioner, and the Delegate from the District of Columbia 

to 18. It authorized 11 staff for the Delegates from Guam 

and the Virgin Islands. Two months later, that discrepancy 

was eliminated with the passage of legislation reported by 

the Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs and signed 

by the President on May 27, 1975.302

Th e introduction of a new Delegate, representing the 

Territory of American Samoa, reopened the question of clerkhire for non-voting Members. Th e bill providing for the new 

Delegate, again originating in the Committee on Interior and 

Insular Aff airs, specifi cally limited the clerk-hire allowance of 

the incumbent to half of that permitted to other Members.303

Th is limitation was eliminated eff ective January, 1, 1983, 

and clerk-hire for all Members, Delegates, and the Resident 

Commissioner has since been authorized equally by the Committee on House Administration.304

Location of Employment. Th e employment of staff ers 

outside of either Washington, D.C. or the Member’s state or 

district, became a topic of interest for the Committee in the 

1960s. Th e interest was ignited in part because of publicity 

surrounding the employment of the wife of Adam Clayton 

Powell of New York, who continued to receive compensation 

despite residing in Puerto Rico.305 Powell insisted that his 

wife earned her pay by responding to the Spanish language 

correspondence of his Harlem-area constituents and that his 

fi nances were singled out for special attention.

Language prohibiting such employment was fi rst proposed in a Committee amendment to resolution, H.Res. 294 

(88th Congress), adjusting the basic clerk hire allowance and 

staff ceiling for Members. Th e amendment stating that “no 

person shall be paid from any clerk hire allowance if such 

person does not perform the services for which he receives 

such compensation in the offi ces of such Member of Resident 

Commissioner in Washington, District of Columbia, or in 

the State or the district which such Member or Resident 

Commissioner represents” was included in the resolution 

agreed to on August 14, 1964.306 Carl Albert, then the House 

Majority Leader, off ered a resolution early the next Congress 

to maintain the provisions of this resolution.307

Th e Subcommittee on Accounts revisited this issue in a 

hearing on May 19, 1965 to consider H.R. 7572 (89th Congress). Th is bill, which was off ered by Lionel Van Deerlin of 

California, proposed the location restriction for employees 

earning more than $1,500 a year. Although no further action 

on this bill was taken, the Subcommittee did agree to discuss 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 189

this issue further with the chairman, and the provisions of the 

earlier resolution were made permanent in the next legislative 

branch appropriations bill.308 Th e provision was modifi ed in 

1999 to permit telework by House employees.309

House Employees Position Classifi cation Act

Th e House Employees Position Classifi cation Act of 1964 

was devised as a means to ensure “the equitable establishment and adjustment of rates of compensation, and for the 

effi cient utilization of personnel in, certain positions under 

the House of Representatives.”310 Initially the classifi cation 

system covered approximately 435 employees then under the 

Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, the Doorkeeper, 

the Postmaster, the minority pair clerk,311 the House Recording Studio, the House Radio and Television Correspondents’ 

Gallery, and the House Periodical Press Gallery. Specifi cally 

excluded were telephone operators and the Capitol Police. 

Prior to the passage of this act, the salary of House 

employees in these offi ces was raised in an ad hoc manner, 

invoking questions of fairness and burdening the Committee with an inundation of disparate as well as particularistic 

requests. Recalling the impetus behind the classifi cation eff orts 

in a hearing in 1966, Subcommittee on Accounts Chairman 

Samuel Friedel noted that the system was the “brain child” of 

Chairman Omar Burleson, who wanted to establish a system 

of equal pay for equal work in these administrative positions.312

Many of the employees originally covered by the act 

had received their positions through patronage. Deschler’s 

Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives notes that as 

early as 1911 an informal Patronage Committee, nominated 

by the Committee on Committees and elected by the majority caucus, divided patronage positions among the majority 

Members, excluding chairmen and varying with the size 

of the party majority.313 Congressional employees could be 

removed from their positions by the Patronage Committee 

for cause, or by the appointing Member at will. Cannon’s 

Precedents cites majority caucus resolutions and letters to 

illustrate the mechanics of this appointment process as well as 

the eff ect of the alternation in partisan control of the House. 

Th ese indicated that positions were distributed based on the 

size the state delegations relative to the party membership in 

the House and that the elective offi cers of the House could 

only appoint employees named by this committee.314

When party control changed in 1918 and 1931, further 

instructions on the assignment of patronage positions were 

issued from the majority party to its members.315 Patronage 

allocations have sharply declined over time. According to 

Congressional Quarterly, “the Republicans disbanded their 

[patronage] committee in the early 1980s; the Democrats 

later abolished their patronage committee” as well.316 “Today 

on Capitol Hill,” the article continues, “the only jobs remaining under patronage are those that do not require specialized 

skills or technical knowledge.”317

Th e need for a more professional system of congressional 

employment was noted by scholars as early as 1941.318 Th e 

Committee’s records at the National Archives indicate that it 

was examining these issues soon after its creation, with Committee member Th omas Stanley writing on August 24, 1950 

to Chairwoman Mary Norton thanking her for appointing 

him chairman of “a subcommittee to make an overall study 

of the salary structure of the personnel of the House of Representatives.”319 Committee records for the 84th Congress 

(1955–1956), include a letter to Clerk of the House Ralph 

Roberts dated May 10, 1955 in which Samuel Friedel indicated that the Committee was “conducting a study and survey of the various positions in the House of Representatives” 

and that “as chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts in 

charge of this preliminary survey, [he] would appreciate it 

very much if [the Clerk] would submit recommendations covering the employees” in his offi ce, including what statutory 

positions existed and any proposals for changes in salaries, 

titles, or the elimination of positions.320 Th ese studies were 

soon followed by bills seeking to bring more order to the 

pay of House employees, and in 1957, H.R.7683, the House 

Employees Payroll Simplifi cation Act, was introduced by Jesse 

Arthur Younger of California and referred to the Committee. 

Younger and others introduced similar bills over the next few 

years, although none were reported by the Committee on 

House Administration.321
190 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Bill Passage. Th e House Employees Position Classifi cation Act, H.R. 12318, was introduced by Subcommittee on 

Accounts Chairman Samuel Friedel of Maryland on August 

11, 1964. Th e Committee reported the bill the following 

day, although during fl oor debate, Committee on House 

Administration Chairman Omar Burleson noted that the 

bill was the culmination of 10 months of study. In the report 

accompanying the bill, the Committee stated that its purpose 

was to provide equal pay for substantially equal work, and to 

establish (1) a logical and appropriate relationship between 

certain House positions, (2) a system that could recognize 

tenure, and (3) organizational tables refl ecting staffi ng and 

responsibilities.323 Th e Committee also aimed to correct the 

labeling of position titles, which had in some cases become 

obsolete. In an eff ort to improve the “confused situation,” the 

Committee had initiated a comprehensive study of positions 

in the four departments then under consideration.324

Th e bill proposed to give the Committee the authority to establish a schedule known as the “House Employees 

Schedule,” or “HS.” Th e per annum schedule was to consist 

of as many compensation levels as the Committee deemed 

appropriate, with each level consisting of 12 compensation 

steps, each set by the Committee at rates not exceeding the 

Classifi cation Act of 1949. Th e Committee was also called 

on to establish a “House Wage Schedule,” or “HWS”, which 

would classify certain positions in accordance with prevailing hourly or annual rates. Rates in both systems could be 

adjusted by the Committee without the need for the enactment of new legislation. Th e bill also aimed to ensure that the 

Committee would have current information with respect to 

all positions within its purview. 

H.R. 12318 addressed the step advancement of employees, specifying that HS employees at steps two, three, and four 

would advance to the next step after one year. Steps fi ve, six, 

and seven would be reached after two years at the previous 

step. Th e next three steps required three years, while the last 

two each required fi ve. Th e movements were also conditional 

on the service in the lower step being completed satisfactorily 

and without a break in service greater than 30 months. Th e 

bill also indicated that there should be no reduction in compensation level based on this act, either at the time of enactment or in the event an employee gained promotion to the 

next level. New employees were to be placed at the minimum 

step of the compensation level. 

Although it altered the compensation system, the bill 

specifi ed that it did not aff ect appointment authority. During 

debate in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Burleson 

indicated that the bill would not alter the patronage system.325

Burleson noted that the Patronage Committee and leadership 

on both sides of the aisle supported the bill, and he verifi ed 

that offi cers of the House would still have control of their 

staff s. Acknowledging that “it does place quite an obligation 

on the Committee on House Administration to see that this 

system does work,” Burleson expressed his hope that it would 

“do away with some of the haphazard handling” he saw in the 

pay system then employed.326 Th e bill passed the House and 

Senate on October 2, and was signed into law on October 13, 

1964.327 It became eff ective on January 1, 1965. 

Oversight and Revision. Over the next few years, the 

Committee monitored the implementation of the provisions 

of the act and considered possible revisions. Th e Committee 

considered three bills the following Congress that aimed to 

alter the new system, including H.R. 12606, H.R. 12688, 

and H.R. 13239. In a comparative analysis of the law and 

new proposals contained in a March 1966 committee print, 

the Committee notes that, if incorporated, the major changes 

would: 1) transfer the authority (with exception of establishing the pay rates) for the management and administration of 

the act from the Committee to House offi cers; 2) reduce the 

length of service required for longevity pay increases; 3) permit the appointment of new employees above the minimum 

step of a particular level; 4) exempt employees of the House 

Recording Studio from the jurisdiction of the act; and 5) 

authorize the Doorkeeper to establish a compensation system 

for extra services performed by employees of the Publication 

Distribution Service.328

Th e Committee examined these proposals in hearings 

on March 22 and June 15, 1966. Congressional supporters of 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 191

a revised bill, along with Clerk of the House Ralph Roberts, 

appeared before the committee. Th ey argued that the offi cers 

should have the power to classify those under them, asserted 

that some positions were classifi ed too low, cited diffi culties 

encountered in replacing departed staff because of the need 

for reclassifi cation, and questioned the decision to include 

some offi ces under the act while excluding others. 

Th e Committee defended its eff orts from the previous 

Congress. Committee member Joe Waggonner, Jr. of Louisiana, emphasized that any offi cer who had a problem with the 

application of the act could have appeared before the Committee.329 Committee colleague John Dent of Pennsylvania 

explained his belief in the necessity of the act, saying that 

with its passage he had “hoped we were setting up a system 

whereby strictly personal prestige of a member does not set 

a rate base for one person over another simply because the 

other person might be as hard working and attending to his 

duties . . . but he does not have a powerful member of Congress behind him to call up and say ‘Give him a 1,000 raise 

or $2,000.”330 Subcommittee Chairman Friedel noted that 

only the Clerk’s offi ce had not signed off on the classifi cation 

system.331 No further action was taken on these bills.

Although the House has not undertaken major revisions in the act since the 1966 eff ort, the Committee has 

remained heavily involved in its implementation by revising 

the schedules, providing oversight of the classifi cation system, 

and reviewing the offi cers’ personnel practices. Responsibility within the Committee over the classifi cation system has 

shifted as the organization and jurisdiction of its subcommittees has been altered. Originally within the jurisdiction 

of the Subcommittee on Accounts, implementation of the 

act became the responsibility of the Subcommittee on Personnel during the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), which was 

consolidated into the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police 

the following Congress. Th e Subcommittee reviewed personnel policy for employees under the act, publishing guidelines 

in 1979.332 Th e Subcommittee on Personnel and Police also 

reviewed numerous reclassifi cation requests, noting in its 

activities report for the 99th Congress (1985–1986) that “each 

month the Subcommittee reviews and approves appointments, salary adjustments, and terminations of positions in 

the offi ces of the House offi cers,” acting on “more than 1000 

personnel actions” during that Congress.333 Th e Committee 

eliminated the use of subcommittees beginning with the 

104th Congress (1995–1996) and compliance with the act is 

now monitored by the full committee. 

Th e Committee has also considered attempts to revise 

the act to include other offi ces. In 1995, the act was amended 

to refl ect changes in the House offi cers, including the elimination of the Doorkeeper and Postmaster positions and the 

creation of the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Offi cer 

and the Inspector General.334 In 2000, the House approved 

legislation permitting new employees to begin their service 

above the minimum step of a compensation level.335

Offi cial Reporters

Th e Committee on House Administration has been responsible for the employment of the offi cial reporters since its 

inception.336 Th is responsibility includes both the reporters 

of debates, who have transcribed the fl oor debates for the 

Congressional Record since 1873, and the stenographers of 

committees, who cover committee hearings and meetings. 

As with many other areas under the jurisdiction of the 

Committee, other entities have historically had an interest 

in the reporters. Th e reporters are currently appointed by the 

Clerk of the House subject to the direction and control of the 

Speaker under House Rule VI. Th is power was vested in the 

Speaker from 1874 until the House authorized the transfer 

by agreeing to H.Res. 959 of the 95th Congress on January 

23, 1978.337 Majority Leader Jim Wright, who introduced 

the resolution, explained the attempt to amend the Rules of 

the House by noting:

Th e Speaker understandably has been loath to exercise or presume to exercise direction or jurisdictional authority over all of the Reporters of Debates 

and deliberations in committees and feels that the 

Clerk of the House, having broad administrative 

jurisdiction over the personnel and the legislative 
192 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

support functions of the House, is the proper person 

to exercise this control and to make the determinations as to whom we should employ, when, and to 

what extent those persons are adequately fulfi lling 

their duties.338

Wright also explained that this change would allow 

reporters to receive the cost-of-living adjustments provided 

other House employees without the need for a specifi c resolution. In addition to leadership and offi cer involvement, 

other congressional committees have been involved in this 

area. In 1947, for example, the former Committee on Post 

Offi ce and Civil Service examined a bill from the Senate 

extending the benefi ts of the Civil Service Retirement Act 

to the offi cial reporters of debates in the Senate. Th e report 

issued by the Committee notes that the Offi cial Reporters 

of the House, as legislative branch employees, were already 

accorded the privilege of coming under the act, while the 

Senate had previously only appropriated a lump sum to be 

equally divided each month for these services.339 Perhaps 

more signifi cantly, the Committee on Appropriations considers funding for the offi ce, contained within the request 

of the Clerk of the House, when it marks up the annual 

legislative branch appropriations bills.

The Committee on House Administration periodically has examined the number of reporters necessary to 

keep up with a growing workload, the requisite salary to 

attract and retain qualifi ed staff , and the need to maintain 

the appropriate pay relationship between positions. In one of 

the early instances of the Committee’s oversight of the reporters, Chairwoman Mary Norton of New Jersey introduced 

H.Res. 103 on February 15, 1949 (81st Congress). Th e resolution, which provided for an additional transcriber in offi ce of 

Offi cial Reporters of Debates to be compensated at the rate 

of $2,300 per annum, was agreed to by the House on April 

14, 1949. Th ree years later, the House separately approved 

compensation for the employment of two additional offi cial 

reporters for committees.340

Th e discussion over employee pay also demonstrates the 

institutional rivalries between the House and Senate. On 

May 14, 1958, Subcommittee on Accounts Chairman Samuel 

Friedel of Maryland presided over a hearing during which 

Lanham Connor, then the dean of the offi cial committee 

reporters, requested an increase in basic salary from $2,500 

to $3,500 for each of the expert transcribers. He testifi ed 

that, over the years, he had lost some reporters to the Senate 

and House fl oors. He testifi ed that four of his most capable 

employees had gone to the Senate because of the pay diff erential between the positions and said that the increase was necessary to retain his employees. After determining that a base 

of $3,600, and a total gross of $6,762, would allow the House 

to pay these employees a little more than the Senate, John Ray 

of New York indicated his preference for the higher fi gure, 

saying that “we certainly should not invite raiding of that sort 

of the employees of the House.”341 Although Mr. Connor did 

indicate that the increase would not cover the fl oor transcribers and thereby break the pay parity between the offi ces that 

then existed, the Subcommittee was unanimous in supporting the request. Friedel introduced a resolution raising the 

basic compensation of these employees on May 18, although 

no further action was taken on that resolution.342

Th e Subcommittee on Accounts considered two separate 

resolutions related to the reporters the following year. Th e 

fi rst, H.Res. 197 (86th Congress), adjusted the basic rate of 

compensation for the expert transcribers in the Offi ce of Offi -

cial Committee Reporters and the Offi ce of Offi cial Reporters 

Of Debates of the House. Th ese employees were to receive 

$3,450 per annum eff ective March 1, 1959. Th e Committee 

reported the resolution favorably and without amendment on 

March 13, and it was agreed to by the House that day.343 A 

second resolution, H.Res. 335, raised the basic compensation 

of the clerk to the Offi cial Reporters of Debates, the clerk to 

the Offi cial Committee Reporters, and the fi rst and second 

assistants. It was reported by the Committee and agreed to 

on August 18, 1959.344

On October 10, 1968, Subcommittee on Accounts 

Chairman Friedel reported a resolution raising the basic 

annual compensation of expert transcribers of debates and 

for committees.345 In 1970, the Committee reported a resolution raising the basic compensation paid to the clerk of 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 193

the Offi cial Reporters of Debate and the fi rst and second 

assistant clerks.346 After submitting the Committee report, 

Joseph Waggonner of Louisiana responded to a question on 

the necessity of a resolution that relates to only three positions. He stated that although the committee had the authority to establish salaries for employees in various departments, 

“there is a statutory provision that certain employees of the 

House must, to get pay raises which involve not just a raise, 

but a reclassifi cation of their positions, which this truly, 

in eff ect, is, we must have the approval of the House.”347

Waggoner also argued that this adjustment was necessary 

to maintain the proper pay relationship between various 

positions in the House.

Over the next few years, the Committee also reported 

resolutions, agreed to by the House, to expand the reportorial corp. A 1970 resolution provided for two additional 

offi cial reporters to committees and two additional expert 

transcribers to offi cial committee reporters, while in 1973 

the committee recommended the addition of one offi cial 

reporter of debates.348

Th e offi cial reporters of debates, the offi cial reporters to 

committees, and the transcribers and clerks to both groups, 

along with the majority pair clerk, the minority fl oor assistants, and the staff of the House Press Gallery, were accorded 

a six percent pay raise when the House agreed to H.Res. 282 

of the 92nd Congress (1971–1972) on April 27, 1971. Th e 

report accompanying the resolution indicates that this resolution was necessary to grant raises to those employees not 

covered by the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (P.L. 

91-656), which granted a similar adjustment to many other 

House employees.349

No action was taken on two resolutions in 1975, one 

which would have made the reporters subject to the House 

Employees Position Classifi cation Act and another which 

aimed to the increase their pay.350 Th e following year, the 

Committee reported H.Res. 1495 (94th Congress), a resolution to increase the gross salary of the offi cial reporters 

of debates and for committees by five percent of the per 

annum gross rate. Th e resolution also provided for subsequent increases equal to the average percent increase made 

in the pay rates of Federal statutory pay systems. During 

debate on the floor, Chairman Frank Thompson of New 

Jersey noted that the reporters had not had a salary adjustment since 1971. Speaking in support of the resolution, he 

argued it would balance the growing pay inequality and 

provide for future increases. Th ompson also cited increases 

in workload and improved service of the reporters, which he 

described as superior to commercial contractors because of 

quality and the top secret clearances maintained by some of 

the employees. Arguing that “most reporters cannot meet our 

demanding standards and schedules,” he also referenced the 

need to increase the salary to mitigate recruitment problems. 

Th e resolution was agreed to on September 30, 1976.351

After this adjustment, and the transfer of appointing 

authority from the Speaker to the Clerk in 1978, the Committee continued to provide oversight for the reporters. 

Various Committee reports cite instances of the committee 

reclassifying numerous positions within the Offi ce of Offi cial 

Reporters to Committees and Offi cial Reporters of Debate, 

which are now combined under the Offi ce of Offi cial Reporters.352 In 1996, during the consideration of the numerous 

changes included in the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, the Committee 

reaffi rmed the authority of the Clerk of the House over the 

offi cial reporters.353

Th e Committee also informs Members and their staff 

about the regulations governing the stenographic reporting 

of committee hearings. Th e current regulations, illustrated 

in the Committee Handbook, stipulate that “all transcription 

services covering a hearing, mark-up or other bipartisan meeting of Members of the committee called by the Chair of a 

committee or subcommittee, must be arranged through the 

Offi ce of Offi cial Reporters to Committees. Such transcription services are provided at no cost to committees.”354 Th e 

Committee Handbook also informs chairs of the appropriate procedure for obtaining coverage of fi eld hearings and 

indicates that the Offi ce of Offi cial Reporters to Committees 

will arrange for outside vendors if the offi cial reporters are not 

available to cover a particular hearing or meeting.
194 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House Offi ce Space

Origins and Development

Th e House Offi ce Building Commission (HOBC), which 

was established on March 4, 1907, has authority to issue 

rules and regulations that govern the use and occupancy of 

all rooms in the House Offi ce Buildings.355 An act approved 

on May 28, 1908 established an elaborate procedure by which 

Members of the House can chose their offi ce space.356 Th is 

act guaranteed Members the right to maintain their personal 

offi ce, once acquired, for the remainder of their time of service or until they chose to relinquish that space. For anyone wishing to change rooms, the act required a Member or 

Member-elect to fi le with the Superintendent of the Capitol 

Building and Grounds a written request for a vacant room. If 

multiple requests were received for the same room, preference 

would go to the Member with the longest continuous service. 

If Members had equal terms of service, preference would then 

go to the Member who fi rst placed the request. Unoccupied 

space was to be assigned by the Superintendent of the Capitol 

Building and Grounds, renamed the Architect of the Capitol 

in 1921, under the direction of the House Offi ce Building 

Commission.357

Th e Committee on Accounts, a predecessor to the Committee on House Administration, also became involved in 

the designation of space issues through its jurisdiction over 

legislation in this area.358 For example, during the 56th Congress it considered a 1901 resolution that directed changes to 

the “lobby of the House as will provide an additional room 

for the use of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

adjoining and communicating with that now occupied by 

him.”359 It also reported a resolution, H.Res. 247 (67th Congress), that refl ected the Committee’s “careful survey of present conditions” and its attempt to provide more space for 

the Committee on Appropriations and “plenty of light and 

ventilation” for the fi le and bill clerks.360 Th e resolution agreed 

to on December 20, 1921 assigned an additional room on the 

House side of the Capitol to the Committee on Appropriations, removed various clerks to the rooms then occupied by 

the House library on the gallery fl oor, and provided that “the 

contents of the House library be removed to such available 

space in the House Offi ce Building as may be selected by the 

House Offi ce Building Commission.”361

Coordination Among House Entities

Th e Committee on House Administration’s authority over 

the assignment of offi ce space for Members, Delegates, the 

Resident Commissioner and committees is found in House 

Rule X, clause 1(j).362 Th is is a responsibility fi rst noted in the 

language creating the Committee in 1946.363 Th e Committee, which considers issues pertaining to both district and 

Washington offi ces, shares this responsibility with the House 

Appropriations Committee, through its responsibility for 

consideration of the annual spending measure for the legislative branch, and the House Offi ce Building Commission.364

The legislative branch appropriations bill, with the 

approval of the Committee on House Administration, periodically contains certain administrative provisions related to 

the House Offi ce Buildings. While the jurisdiction for these 

issues may fall under the Committee, and the Committee staff 

may be heavily involved in the research prior to enactment of 

the provision and the subsequent implementation, the annual 

appropriations bill provides a useful vehicle for such changes. 

One reason is that an administrative provision in the appropriations act allows the Committee to avoid multiple battles 

on the fl oor on the same issue. Th is may be particularly useful when both an authorization and large sums of money are 

needed for repairs to the House complex, for example. Th e bill 

also allows the Committee to make permanent certain internal House policies. Th e House Offi ce Building Commission, 

on the other hand, has been given powers in statute but has no 

legislative authority. Any bill introduced regarding the House 

offi ce buildings would be referred to the Committee. Th e 

House Offi ce Building Commission, however, consists of the 

leadership from both parties, and the Committee has generally deferred to its wishes on internal housekeeping matters.365

Assignment of Rooms in House Offi ce Buildings

Th e Superintendent of House Offi ce Buildings, an employee of 

the Architect, currently supervises offi ce moves and offi ciates 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 195

at the offi ce lottery, in which Members with equal lengths of 

service draw numbers to determine order of selection. Speakers 

of the House, as chairs of the House Offi ce Building Commission, have periodically issued updates to the regulations initially 

promulgated in 1908. Th e changes adopted refl ect a need to 

address the offi ce moves after an election and the occupancy 

of personal offi ces when a Member leaves the House before the 

end of a Congress. For example, in 1978 and 1980, Speaker 

Th omas P. “Tip” O’Neill requested Members not returning 

to the next Congress vacate their suites by noon on December 

15th after the election so that the space could be readied for the 

next occupants.366 In regulations promulgated on October 7, 

1996, that date was changed to December 1.367

These regulations also incorporate provisions of law 

adopted with regard to offi ce vacancies occurring during a 

session of Congress. Rod Grams of Minnesota off ered an 

amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 

of FY1994 banning the use of House funds included in that 

measure for the relocation of any Member’s offi ce. Speaking in support of the amendment on June 10, 1993, Grams 

noted multiple mid-session offi ce moves after four Members 

left Congress that year.368 Th is amendment was adopted and 

became law on August 11, 1993.369 Th e following year, noting 

that the provision would expire in November, Grams told 

the House that he would “urge the House Building Commission to make this commonsense reform a permanent 

change that does not need to be renewed annually.”370 Th e 

Legislative Branch Act for FY1996 also included a prohibition against using funds provided within it for Member 

offi ce moves. Revised regulations subsequently issued by the 

House Office Building Commission on October 7, 1996 

incorporated this sentiment against mid-session moves.371

Th e regulations issued during the 110th Congress continued 

this policy, stating that any Members elected to vacant seats 

will temporarily occupy their predecessors’ offi ce until they 

may choose a suite during the regular lottery following the 

next general election according to their length of service.372

As security concerns prompted Congress to consider the 

possibility that a terrorist action or other event could prevent 

the occupation of the House offi ce buildings for a lengthy 

period, the Committee examined eff orts to ensure continuity 

of operations. At a September 10, 2002 hearing held to assess 

security upgrades since the terrorist attacks the previous year, 

Chief Administrative Offi cer James Eagen testifi ed that “it 

is clear that we need to establish prearranged offi ce facilities 

with the necessary infrastructure to enable short setup time 

when Members, leadership, committees and their staff s are 

unable to access current facilities.”373 He then informed the 

Committee that complete offi ce space assignments for the 

alternate House offi ces had been made.

District Offi ce Space

In addition to overseeing the distribution of offi ce space in 

Washington, DC, the Committee has examined the procurement and use of offi ces in congressional districts. Language in 

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Acts in for fi scal years 

1953, 1954, and 1955, authorized and directed the Sergeant at 

Arms to secure offi ce space in U.S. post offi ces or other Federal buildings in each district for use of the Member.374 If no 

suitable space was available in such buildings, and a Member 

chose to lease or rent space elsewhere, the Sergeant at Arms 

was authorized to approve payment from the contingent fund 

in an amount not to exceed $900 per year for such space. In 

the latter Act, the Clerk was also permitted to reimburse a 

Member for offi cial offi ce expenses incurred in the district in 

an amount not to exceed $150 each quarter. 

During the 85th Congress (1957–1958), the Committee 

considered legislation to amend this arrangement. On May 

16, 1957, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts 

Samuel Friedel of Maryland submitted a report to accompany 

H.R. 790, which the Committee had considered and reported 

favorably with amendments. Th e bill aimed to clarify authorized locations for district offi ces. In an explanatory statement 

in the report, the Committee indicated that a number of 

Members occupied offi ces outside their districts.375 In larger 

cities with multiple congressional districts, the Committee reported, “several Members may occupy offi ces in the 

same Federal building which, actually, would not be located 

within the boundaries of their respective districts.” Th e bill 
196 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

reported by Committee made these Members eligible for 

the reimbursement of up to $150 quarterly for offi cial offi ces 

expenses incurred outside of Washington, rather than only 

in the Member’s district. Th is bill was approved and became 

law on June 13, 1957.376

Th at year, the Committee also worked to clarify language concerning the number and size of offi ces to which a 

Member was entitled. On February 20, 1957, Robert Ashmore of South Carolina, a member of the full Committee, 

introduced H.R. 5100 (85th Congress). Appearing before 

the Subcommittee on Accounts on March 8, 1957, to discuss his bill, Representative Ashmore mentioned a source 

of confusion for himself and other Members. He noted that 

at the time he had one offi ce, which was located in a federal 

building, although he claimed that he and his predecessor 

had previously had two offices for many years. When he 

tried to arrange for an additional privately secured offi ce, he 

was told by the Sergeant at Arms that the General Services 

Administration (GSA) had interpreted the law as indicating 

that Members could only have one offi ce, whether in a public 

building or privately leased. He found this limiting, especially 

in a district with two towns of comparable size.377 Members 

of the Committee noted their own experiences in obtaining 

district space and discussed billing issues and whether or not 

the allowance needed to be raised. 

Th e Committee continued its examination of district 

offi ce space on August 22 when it reported another bill 

introduced by Representative Ashmore, H.R. 9282, which 

amended the 1955 act so each Member could procure up to 

two district offi ces. It also permitted the Sergeant at Arms 

to secure offi ce space in post offi ces or federal buildings. 

Members with space not secured by the Sergeant at Arms 

could present vouchers to the Clerk of the House, and the 

Committee opted to raise the limit on reimbursements 

from $900 to $1,200 per annum.378 Th e bill became law on 

September 7, 1957.379

Th e issue of district offi ce space persisted in the next 

Congress, as numerous articles in the press questioned the 

practices by which Members chose privately secured space. 

Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance reporter Vance Trimble, 

who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1960 for his work, charged some 

Members with nepotism in a series of articles. Accusations 

arose of Members employing relatives and charging the government for district offi ce space in their own homes.380

Th e Committee proceeded to hold two hearings on 

bills introduced to resolve this issue. In a April 27, 1959, 

hearing the Committee considered H.Res. 229 (86th Congress), which sought to require each Member acquiring 

district offi ce space, that was paid for from the contingent 

fund, to fi le a report with the Clerk of the House containing 

the amount of the rent, the recipient of the rent, and any 

relationship between that recipient and the Member. Th ese 

reports were to remain open for public inspection. Disbursement would be prohibited if a report was not fi led. During 

the second hearing, on August 5, 1959, Robert Ashmore 

testifi ed on behalf of a bill he had introduced on July 28 

that also required disclosure of the amounts charged for 

district offi ce space and the relationship of the rent recipient. 

Speaking in support of H.R. 331 (86th Congress), Ashmore 

acknowledged the “recent unfavorable publicity” in this 

area and discussions among Committee members of the 

problem. He also acknowledged certain obstacles to reform, 

including comparisons to reforms undertaken by the Senate. Subcommittee chairman Samuel Friedel of Maryland 

defended the current system, noting that records were open 

for inspection in the Disbursing Offi ce. Friedel said that 

the House made full disclosure, “but what we do not do is 

just hand them the information without them working for 

it.”381 He objected to spending additional money to assist 

the journalists. Ashmore countered by noting that many 

journalists had trouble accessing the information, which 

Friedel blamed on reporters who had “ganged up and were 

living in the Disbursing Offi ce. . . . Th ese people ran there 

continuously, morning, noon and night.” Friedel proposed 

leaving the decision up to constituents as to whether or not 

it is acceptable to employ or rent from a relative or business 

associate. Ashmore favored full disclosure, and Willard 

Curtin of Pennsylvania echoed his support, saying “I think 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 197

you are protecting yourself against possible criticism in the 

future.” Friedel, however, lectured his colleagues on the 

dangers of the hostile press which could distort the information. George Rhodes of Pennsylvania voiced his agreement, 

saying “we are not going to make the press clean, and we are 

not going to make Congress perfect, and we are not going to 

get anywhere with legislation like this.”382 He would favor 

the legislation, he said, if “stiff criminal penalties” were 

added.383 No further action was taken on either resolution. 

Six years later, the Committee again considered legislation further amend the laws governing the procurement of 

district offi ce space. Introduced by Augustus Hawkins of 

California on July 22, 1965, H.R. 10014 (89th Congress) was 

favorably reported by the Committee without amendment 

on August 4.384 Th e bill proposed to double the allowable 

authorized rent for district offi ces to $2,400 per year. It also 

corrected language in the Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act of 1955 by recognizing the achievement of statehood 

by Alaska and Hawaii and striking references to their Delegates. Speaking to clarify the provisions of the bill on the 

House fl oor, Samuel Friedel indicated that Members would 

remain limited to two district offi ces, regardless of whether 

or not space could be provided by the Sergeant at Arms in 

a post offi ce or other federal building.385 He also reminded 

Members that the new allowance could only be used in the 

congressional district and certifi ed leases must be presented 

to the Clerk before any payment could be made. Th e bill was 

agreed to by the House that day, and on September 29, 1965, 

was signed into law.386

In a guidance to Members on regulations concerning 

various expenses issued by the Committee for the 91st Congress (1969–1970), Members were reminded that they were 

entitled to not more than two offi ces in the district and of the 

$2,400 per annum limit on space not secured by the Sergeant 

at Arms.387 Leases for rental offi ce space, they were informed, 

were to be submitted to the Finance Offi ce, which would 

certify voucher payments directly to the lessors.

The Committee issued a series of committee orders 

over the next few years to revise the manner in which funds 

for district offi ce space were allocated.388 In a revised order 

printed in the Congressional Record on January 26, 1972, the 

Committee specifi ed that not more than two spaces could be 

secured in post offi ces or other Federal buildings and that the 

General Services Administration (GSA) could provide furnishings for no more than three district offi ces.389 Th e Committee retained the $2,400 annual limit on rents, although 

it allowed Members to certify to the Committee if they were 

unable to procure offi ce space in their districts at that rate. 

Th e Committee could then, as it considered appropriate, 

direct the Clerk to approve amounts not exceeding $350 per 

month. In another order issued two years later, the Committee raised this ceiling to $500. If a Member certifi ed that 

rental offi ce space could not be secured at this higher rate, 

the Committee could direct the Clerk to approve payment 

for offi ce space “not exceeding approximately 1,500 square 

feet at rates not to exceed the highest applicable rate charged 

to Federal agencies in the district established by regulations 

issued by the Administrator of General Services.”390 In 1976, 

the Committee adopted another regulation which eliminated 

a specifi c dollar allowance for district offi ces and permitted 

all Members to secure space at an amount equivalent to 1,500 

square feet at the highest allowable General Services Administration rate. Th is order also permitted Members to transfer 

the authorization to expend funds among various allowances, 

including the District Offi ce Rental Allowance.391

Th e next Congress, the Committee considered H.Res. 

687 (95th Congress), which increased the multiplier from 

1,500 to 2,500 square feet eff ective January 3, 1978. In the 

report accompanying the legislation, the Committee referenced their study of Members’ utilization of offi ce space 

and belief that failure to raise the multiplier “may result in a 

substantial disruption of constituent services, reduction in the 

accessibility of Members to their constituents, overcrowding 

of staff in district offi ces, and other hardships impinging each 

Members ability to carry out his representational duties.”392

Th e resolution was agreed to by the House on September 

20, 1977, and made permanent by the Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act of 1979.393
198 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

The Committee has since provided oversight of the 

CAO’s assistance in securing and furnishing the district 

offi ces, for example, by approving revisions to the district 

offi ce lease form in October 2004 and reviewing recommendations for improved district offi ce transitions presented by 

the House Inspector General in March 2005.394 It has also 

monitored the eff orts of House offi cers to ensure continuity 

of operations and security in district offi ces. For example, 

following the January 8, 2011, shooting that killed six people 

and wounded Representative Gabrielle Giff ords, the House 

Sergeant at Arms established the Law Enforcement Coordinator program and coordinated physical security assessments 

for district offi ces. A new Members’ Congressional Handbook, 

adopted December 16, 2011, also contains new language 

regarding district offi ces, particularly related to district offi ce 

security improvements. 

The Members’ Representational Allowance for 2011 

continues to provide “the dollar equivalent of 2,500 square 

feet multiplied by the applicable General Services Administration (GSA) rental rate” charged by GSA to Federal agencies in 

the Member’s district, although there is no other limit on the 

number or size of district offi ces.395 Leases, and any substantive amendments, must be approved by the Administrative 

Counsel in the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Offi cer 

(CAO) prior to the disbursement of any funds.396

Offi cial Travel

Origins and Development

In the early years of Congress, the travel of Representatives 

between the Capitol and their districts was often a long and 

arduous journey. In fact, when the fi rst federal Congress was 

set to convene in New York on March 4, 1789, only 13 of 

the 65 Representatives were in attendance. Th e others, notes 

Historian Robert Remini, “were delayed on account of roads 

frequently mired in mud, riddled with potholes or washed 

away by fl oodwaters,” or because they “had to slog their way 

through a wilderness because there were no roads at all.”397 Th e 

House did not achieve a quorum to conduct business until 

April 1. Although travel conditions would improve over the 

course of the next century, the ability of Members to return 

home at the end of a session, maintain contact with their families and constituents, and obtain timely news from across the 

nation and abroad, remained an important concern.

By 1947, when the Committee on House Administration 

was established, technological advances had made travel more 

routine. Aviation, which had only been invented 44 years earlier, had drastically reduced the length of time it would take 

Members to reach their constituents and far-fl ung corners 

of the world. Along with the greater ease of travel, America’s 

overseas obligations increased in the post-War era, and interest among Members in gaining fi rst-hand insight rose accordingly. Such travel had the potential to impact the nation’s 

post-war foreign policy. One news account in 1947 praised 

congressional trips and described how some Members “abandoned narrow provincialism and rose to leadership stature on 

their return, softening the hard core of isolation that is still 

latent in both Houses.”398 Th e abandonment of geographic 

limitations on Congress was not without issue, and it soon 

became evident that it would mean a greater need for input 

and guidance from the Committee concerning foreign and 

domestic offi cial travel qualifi cations, reimbursement limits 

and procedures, and reporting requirements. 

Jurisdictional History

Prior to the creation of the Committee in 1946, questions pertaining to travel had been handled by either the 

Committee on Mileage (1837–1927) or the Committee on 

Accounts (1803–1946). Th e Committee on House Administration has exercised jurisdiction since then, although 

legislation considered by other committees—notably the 

House Appropriations Committee, the House International Relations Committee, and the House Rules Committee—has aff ected the boundaries of its power and the 

duties incumbent upon it. 

Initially, legislation pertaining to travel referred to the 

Committee was occasionally handled at the full committee 

level, while subcommittees were utilized during some periods for certain issues. In the 86th Congress (1959–1960), the 

Committee established a Special Subcommittee on Travel, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 199

although its name was soon changed to the Special Subcommittee on Audit. Th is Special Subcommittee was appointed 

the following two Congresses. During this time, travel issues 

were either referred to the Special Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Accounts, or the full Committee. Committee 

records from the 88th Congress (1963–1964) provide some 

insight into the rationale behind this jurisdictional overlap. 

On July 18, 1963, Chairman Omar Burleson of Texas wrote 

to Samuel Friedel of Maryland, a member of the Committee who served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Accounts that: 

in order to keep a closer check on voucher payments 

I feel it wise to continue the Audit Subcommittee 

separate from other subcommittee responsibilities.... As Chairman of the Accounts Subcommittee, it would seem this would naturally fall under 

your direct interest, and I hope that you will so act 

as Chairman.”399

After noting the two other Members he asked to serve on 

the panel, Burleson suggested that the Special Subcommittee 

on Audit interpret regulations and review travel vouchers, 

ruling on vouchers of doubtful validity. He indicated the 

Subcommittee could also interpret and rule on questions 

relating to travel by Members and employees both inside the 

United States and abroad and supervise the publication of 

the Clerk’s report on expenditures. Th e Audit Subcommittee subsequently worked with Members on issues including 

excessive taxicab travel in Washington, DC, disallowing 

reimbursement for overweight luggage charges, and rectifying the incorrect classifi cation of a consultant as a witness for 

travel reimbursement purposes. Th e full Committee as well 

as the Subcommittee on Accounts also examined regulations 

concerning the use of funds for travel, particularly that outside the United States. Th e Subcommittee on Audit was not 

reappointed in the 89th Congress, and legislation pertaining 

to travel was subsequently either referred to the Subcommittee on Accounts or handled at the full committee level. Th e 

Subcommittee on Accounts, in turn, was eliminated at the 

beginning of the 104th Congress and measures pertaining to 

travel are now examined by the full committee. 

Th e Committee’s authority over the travel of Members, 

Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner is found in House 

Rule X.400

Overseas Travel

Overseas travel of Members and staff since 1948 has been paid 

for with either appropriated or counterpart funds, depending 

upon the availability of the latter in a particular destination. 

Th ese counterpart funds included local currency accounts 

established by the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 and 

were negotiated as part of various foreign assistance agreements.401 Under the act, countries receiving mutual security 

aid are required to deposit an equivalent of their own currency in a special account to be used within that country. An 

amendment to the act in 1949 stipulated that fi ve percent of 

this account “shall be allocated to the use of the United States 

Government for expenditure for materials which are required 

by the United States as a result of defi ciencies or potential 

defi ciencies in its own resources or for other local currency 

requirements of the United States.”402 Further amendments 

specifi ed that appropriate congressional committees should 

have access to these funds in carrying out their duties and 

raised the amount to ten percent of the local currency.403

Th e State Department made these funds available to 

Members of Congress traveling with the authorization of 

a committee chair. In January 1954, Chairman Karl Le 

Compte of Iowa received a response from House Foreign 

Aff airs Committee Chairman Robert Chiperfi eld of Illinois 

in regards to his inquiry into the Foreign Aff airs Committee’s use of these counterpart funds. Chairman Chiperfi eld 

indicated a provisional total, pending fi nal accounting by the 

State Department, of $27,221.73 in counterpart funds used 

for study missions conducted by his committee during the 

fi rst session of the 83rd Congress. He noted the savings this 

provided to the taxpayer “is one of the few ways in which the 

American people can get some return for the grant aid which 

they have given those countries.”404

Later that year, Congress increased its accountability 
200 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

for the use of counterpart funds in the Mutual Security Act 

of 1954, which provided a fi rst step in addressing this issue. 

Th e act, reported by the House Foreign Aff airs Committee on 

June 25, 1954, became law on August 26, 1954.405 It retained 

the availability of local currencies owned by the United States 

to “appropriate congressional committees,” but required that 

any committee using these funds fi le a report with the Committee on House Administration or the Senate Committee 

on Rules and Administration, as appropriate.406 Th ese reports 

were to contain the total currency expended and for what 

purpose it was used.

Beginning with the 83rd Congress (1953–1954), the 

Committee began to list which committees had authority to 

conduct foreign travel in the committee expense section of 

its Committee Calendar. Th is authority was granted in simple 

resolutions considered by the Rules Committee and agreed 

to by the House. Th ese resolutions sometimes specifi ed the 

size of the committee delegation, the destinations to which it 

could travel, and the purpose of the travel.407 Amendments to 

the Mutual Security Act in 1958 altered the reporting requirements, stipulating that any Member or employee traveling on 

offi cial committee business fi le an itemized report of expenditures to the chair of that committee. Both the amounts and 

dollar equivalent values of each foreign currency expended 

were to be listed, along with the purpose of the expenditure. 

Th e chairman, in turn, was required to make a consolidated 

report for the committee and forward it to the Committee on 

House Administration or Senate Committee on Appropriations within the fi rst 60 days that Congress was in session in 

each calendar year. Th ese reports would then be published 

in the Congressional Record within ten days of receipt by the 

respective committees.408

On March 9, 1959, H.R. Gross of Iowa introduced H.R. 

5401, which aimed to broaden foreign travel disclosure requirements. Th e Subcommittee on Accounts held hearings on the 

bill on May 21 and June 30. Gross emphasized that he did not 

intend to criticize all trips abroad, but rather noted that “certain 

practices have cast a shadow over the entire Congress.”409 Gross 

argued that the reports required by the Mutual Security Act of 

1958 did not go far enough in the requirements for itemization 

by not requiring the publication of each Member’s expenses 

but rather allowing for a consolidated report of the committee 

and by not taking into account the accompanying spouses for 

whom expenditures were made. Chairman Samuel Friedel 

countered by citing incidences in which he believed the press 

misrepresented the disclosures. For example, he noted occasions in which the press reported foreign currency spending 

without citing dollar equivalents. Friedel indicated that “the 

committee felt that the press can do a Member of Congress a 

lot of damage and harm.”410

At the June 30th hearing, Omar Burleson, Chairman of 

the full committee, reminded his colleagues of earlier eff orts 

by the Committee to address this topic. He said that around 

the 84th Congress (1955–1956), he and then-Chairman Karl 

Le Compte of Iowa attempted to: 

prevail upon the Chairmen of the various committees to report to this committee and to make 

public expenditures of counterpart funds or appropriated funds or any funds expended by Members 

traveling overseas, but we ran into considerable 

diffi culty even with regard to the cooperation of 

the Chairman, although we think, probably there 

were different opinions as to how those efforts 

should be conducted.411

Burleson also pointed out the diffi culty in accounting 

for appropriated or counterpart funds that various executive 

branch agencies, like the State Department, may have used 

to support congressional travel. The Committee had also 

encountered diffi culty in assessing some expenses, like the 

cost per passenger on a special mission plane from the Defense 

Department, and assigning this to particular Members. 

In 1960, two acts were passed containing additional 

changes to travel reporting requirements. Th e fi rst, another 

amendment to the Mutual Security Act, passed on May 

14, required the reporting of appropriated funds as well as 

counterpart funds.412 An additional provision concerning 

foreign travel became law on July 12, with the passage of the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 201

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1961.413 Th is provision required delegations to the Interparliamentary Union, 

the NATO parliamentarian’s conference, the Canada-United 

States Interparliamentary Group, the Mexico-United States 

Interparliamentary Group or any similar interparliamentary 

organization to fi le itemized reports of the expenditures of 

each participant with the Committee on Foreign Relations 

of the Senate or Committee on Foreign Aff airs of the House, 

as appropriate. Th e chairmen of these committees were then 

required to consolidate these reports and fi le them with either 

the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or the Committee on House Administration. Th e consolidated committee reports were to be printed in the Congressional Record 

within ten days of receipt.414

During the 88th Congress (1963–1964), both the full 

Committee and the Subcommittee on Accounts focused on 

alleged abuses of travel funds. The Committee considered 

reducing appropriations for foreign travel and applying additional foreign travel guidelines. With the approval of the Committee on House Administration, which retained responsibility for supervising expenditures of the House, the House 

Rules Committee approved a number of resolutions specifying 

whether or not a committee, as part of its investigative duties, 

had authority for foreign travel or access to counterpart funds 

on January 30, 1963.415 Th e House considered many of the 

resolutions for this Congress on January 31, 1963.416 An additional resolution authorizing the Committee on Agriculture to 

conduct investigations only in the United States and prohibiting its access to counterpart funds was agreed to on February 

18, 1963.417 In all, eight committees were specifi cally limited 

to investigations within the United States, while two were 

permitted to travel to specifi c overseas areas.418 All ten were 

prohibited from using counterpart funds. Five resolutions 

specifi ed approval of foreign travel for certain committees.419

Th e Rules Committee actions did not extend to committees 

that did not require specifi c authorization to conduct studies 

and investigation or did not plan to.420 Committees authorized 

to travel abroad were instructed to use counterpart funds whenever possible, and expenditures were limited to the maximum 

per diem set forth in the Standardized Government Travel 

Regulations, as revised and amended by the Bureau of the 

Budget. Th e resolutions prohibited an employee from receiving or expending an amount for transportation in excess of 

actual transportation costs. Th ey also contained additional 

requirements. Th e resolution covering travel of Armed Services 

Committee members, for example, states that:

each member or employee of said committee shall 

make to the chairman of said committee an itemized report showing the number of days visited in 

each country whose local currencies were spent, 

the amount of per diem furnished, and the cost of 

transportation if furnished by public carrier, or if 

such transportation is furnished by an agency of 

the United States Government, the identifi cation 

of the agency.421

These reports were to be filed with the Committee on 

House Administration and remain available for public 

inspection. 

On February 7, 1963, Chairman Omar Burleson sponsored legislation that would further regulate travel funds. In 

a hearing on the bill on March 14, he announced that the 

leadership and numerous Members favored its passage as a 

way to simplify the regulations.422 Th e report that accompanied H.J. Res. 245 when it was reported by the committee 

two months later noted what they considered to be lacking 

in existing law, including:

Individuals or groups are authorized to travel on 

the basis of broad language which provides little 

control over who may travel or the purpose of such 

travel; there is no specifi c ceiling or limitation on 

the amount of funds available for expenses of travel 

overseas; the reporting requirements do not specify 

that the length of time spent in each country be 

shown; no supporting documentation of expenditures is required; transportation is in no way controlled; and there is no check or audit available in 

connection with reported expenditures.423
202 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Th e Committee noted the amendments adopted by the 

Committee on Rules earlier in the session addressed some of 

these issues, but argued that this action neither extended to 

the committees that did not require the specifi c authorization 

to conduct studies and investigations, nor were the restrictions extended to Members and employees of the Senate. Th e 

Committee argued that their bill corrected for these defects 

and others by requiring specifi c resolutions authorizing travel 

from the House of Representatives or the Senate, reporting of 

dates of travel, limiting transportation costs to “that which 

may be established as reasonable,” and requiring executive 

branch agencies to fi le detailed reports, which were to be 

printed in the Congressional Record, on funds expended on 

behalf of a congressional delegation.424 Th e House approved 

H.J. Res 245 by a vote of 387-2 on May 7, 1963. Th e Senate, however, took no action during the 88th Congress. Th e 

Committee continued to monitor travel and amend voucher 

forms and regulations in the House, periodically updating 

the publication, “Regulations: Travel and other Expenses of 

Committees and Members.”425

In the 1970s, a series of actions and reforms aff ected 

the duties of the Committee on House Administration 

with respect to the reporting of travel. Th e requirement that 

reports on travel be published in the Congressional Record

was dropped in the State Department authorization act of 

1973.426 A provision the following year in the Legislative 

Branch appropriations bill for FY1975 replaced the printing with language requiring reports be made available in 

the Offi ce of the Clerk.427 Th e Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, adopted on October 8, 1974, dropped the 

requirement that committees obtain separate authorization 

for travel, and the 93rd Congress was therefore the last time 

such authority was separately listed in the Committee Calendar.

428 Th e Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1976 

provided for the fi ling of consolidated reports on the travel 

of interparliamentary delegations, prepared by the chairman 

of the House Committee on International Relations, with 

the Committee on House Administration and required they 

remain open for inspection.429 Th is law brought reporting 

requirements for travel for interparliamentary conferences 

into conformity with other foreign travel expense reporting 

requirements and into conformity with House Rules.430 A 

provision in the FY1977 State Department authorization act 

reinstated the requirement that consolidated foreign travel 

reports be printed in the Congressional Record within 10 days 

of receipt by the Clerk of the House.431

Th e passage of the International Security Act of 1978 further altered reporting procedures. Committee chairmen were 

thereafter required to fi le quarterly reports on travel with the 

Clerk of the House, and Members traveling with the authorization of the Speaker were required to fi le reports within 

30 days of completion of travel.432 Th e Clerk was directed to 

prepare a consolidation of these reports which was to remain 

open for public inspection and be printed in the Congressional 

Record within ten legislative days after its completion. 

Reimbursement levels were further clarified in the 

Rules of the House (H. Res. 5) for the 95th Congress 

(1977–1978), approved on January 4, 1977 and H. Res. 

287, approved March 2, 1977. H. Res. 5 stipulated that “no 

appropriated funds . . . shall be expended for the purpose 

of defraying expenses of members . . . in any country where 

local currencies are available for this purpose” and further 

clarifi ed spending and reporting requirements.433 H. Res. 

287, which was introduced on February 16, 1977, by Representative Lee Hamilton, was referred to the Committees 

on Rules, House Administration, and Standards of Offi cial 

Conduct. Title V, which was referred to the Committee on 

Rules, pertained to foreign travel of Members and employees. It stipulated that Members and employees of the House 

of Representatives, whether traveling with counterpart or 

appropriated funds, shall not expend or be reimbursed for 

an amount in excess of the maximum per diem set forth in 

applicable Federal law. Additionally, any traveler being reimbursed for expenses for such day was to receive “the lesser 

of the per diem or the actual, unreimbursed expenses.”434

Th ese guidelines have been adopted into the Rules of the 

House in subsequent Congresses.435

Title V also resolved an issue that had periodically come 

before the Committee on House Administration. Prior to 

its passage, retiring or defeated Members of Congress were 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 203

permitted to travel overseas at taxpayer expense. Th e issue was 

a favorite topic of criticism in the press, which liked to highlight the cost of trips and argue, as Washington Post columnist 

Drew Pearson did, that the Members had “no real reason to 

take the trip since they can’t use their knowledge for the benefi t of the taxpayers who fi nance it.”436 Numerous bills aiming 

to prevent these trips, which had become derisively known 

as “lame-duck junkets,” fl ooded the House beginning in 

January, 1973. Th e majority of these bills were referred to the 

Committee, although the issue also arose during fl oor consideration of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974. 

Title V prohibited the use of appropriated, counterpart or 

contingent funds by Members who had not been re-elected. 

It was adopted when the House approved the resolution on 

March 2, 1977 with a roll call vote of 402–22. Th e prohibition was subsequently contained in House Rules.437

Administrative Oversight: Revising Reimbursement 

Rates and Monitoring Use of Travel Agents, Credit 

Cards, and Voucher Forms 

Th e Committee has also overseen the development of regulations for the procurement of travel. Th is oversight has 

included an examination of reimbursement rates and the use 

of travel agencies, special negotiated airfares, and credit cards.

On April 19 and May 3, 1967, the Subcommittee on 

Accounts considered recommendations made in the report 

of the Special Subcommittee on Contracts, which examined 

expenditures made during the 89th Congress (1965–1966) by 

the House Committee on Education and Labor. Th e Special 

Subcommittee had recommended “the elimination of the 

purchase of transportation through travel agencies and that 

no credit cards be issued to any committee without prior 

approval of the Committee on House Administration.”438 Th e 

Committee on House Administration weighed the relative 

merits of using credit cards, travel agencies, and government 

transportation requests before settling on the latter. Th e use 

of outside travel agencies, they concluded, made diffi cult any 

attempt to audit expenses. Th e credit cards in turn, created 

more of an “administrative burden” and were criticized as 

equivalent to “having cash fl oating around.”440

In revised regulations for 1970, the Committee loosened the restriction and announced that “each standing and 

select committee of the House of Representatives may have 

issued to it one universal airline credit card in the name of 

the chairman or a Member or staff employee designated by 

the chairman.” 

Th e Committee also worked to obtain reasonable airfare 

for Members and staff traveling on offi cial business. In a 

“Dear Colleague” letter of May 18, 1981, Chairman Augustus Hawkins announced new arrangements, saying that: 

since November 1980, the Committee on House 

Administration has been working with the General 

Services Administration on House participation 

in their contract air fare program. I am pleased to 

advise you that GSA has successfully negotiated 

with seven airlines to provide discount air fares for 

Committees, Members and employees of the House 

when traveling on offi cial business.”441

Hawkins noted that participation had been mandatory 

for most of the executive branch since July 1, 1980. Th e General Services Administration (GSA) modifi ed the contracts 

to allow the House to participate on a non-mandatory basis, 

provided that travelers use a special “offi cial travel authorization form.” Advanced payment was required in the form of 

cash, check or money order. Th e use of credit cards or travel 

agents was left to the discretion of the contract airline carriers. 

As the use of credit cards grew more widespread, the 

Committee would periodically monitor this situation, 

updating the Members’ Congressional Handbook and Committee Handbook and issuing “Dear Colleague” letters to 

remind card holders on their proper use.442 In a letter issued 

August 3, 1995, Chairman Bill Th omas wrote that “eff ective September 27, the Finance Offi ce will provide timely 

reimbursement to Members and staff for travel expenses 

charged to the American Express travel card; in turn, you 

will be responsible for paying American Express directly for 

charges to the card.”443 In a clarifying letter issued the following month, the Chairman indicated that this change was 

adopted in accordance with a recommendation included in 
204 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

an audit conducted by Price Waterhouse.444 Both letters also 

addressed the use of standard and trip envelope vouchers 

to summarize expenses. In March 2002, the Committee 

approved the implementation of direct travel card payments.445 Th e Committee has since considered recommendations included in the House Inspector General’s report on 

the House Travel Card program and amended the Citibank 

travel card policies.446

Th e Committee has also regularly adjusted mileage 

reimbursement rates for personally owned or leased automobiles and aircraft, often following rulings issued by 

the General Services Administration (GSA) amending 

the Federal Travel Regulations applicable to the mileage 

reimbursement rates for travel performed by U.S. government employees.447 Th e Committee also worked to update 

the Committee Handbook and the Members’ Congressional 

Handbook to refl ect new regulations and House Resolutions. For example, following changes to the House Rules 

restricting certain types of privately funded travel, the 

Committee worked to incorporate language into its publications. It has also examined voucher documentation 

standards, proposing changes when needed and adopting 

committee resolutions.448

Franking

Origins and Development

Th e congressional franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to send mail at government expense, has 

existed in the United States since 1792449, when Congress 

passed legislation granting Members of Congress the privilege to send and receive letters and packets of up to 2 ounces 

free of postage during sessions of Congress and for 20 days 

afterwards.450 During the 19th century, Congress amended 

the franking statutes numerous times,451 in some cases 

expanding the period of time, the type of material allowed 

to be franked,452 or the recipients of the privilege,453 while 

in other cases reducing it.454

In 1873, the general franking privilege was abolished 

for Members of Congress.455 In 1874, Congress partially 

restored the privilege by allowing Members to send public 

documents at a reduced rate.456 In 1895, Congress restored 

the general franking privilege for Members, allowing them 

to send under their frank “any mail matter related to offi -

cial business.”457 However, unlike the pre-1873 legislation, 

Members were not allowed to receive mail free of postage. 

Th e 1895 statute—with occasional minor amendment—

governed Member use of the franking privilege during most 

of the 20th century. Because the statute was vague about the 

defi nition of “matter related to offi cial business,” it became 

the practice of the Department of the Post Offi ce to off er 

advisory opinions to Members of Congress on the frankability 

of individual mailings.

Beginning in 1968, a series of events led Congress to revise 

the franking statutes. First, the Post Offi ce indicated that it 

would no longer off er advisory opinions to Members on the 

use of the frank; Members would themselves need to determine 

the proper use of the frank.458 Second, several groups fi led 

lawsuits against individual Members of Congress, arguing 

that their use of congressional franking privilege during campaigns was unconstitutional.459 Th ese events led Congress to 

pass comprehensive franking reform legislation in 1973.460 Th e 

vague defi nitions of the 1895 statute were replaced with specifi c 

limitations on what Members could and could not frank, mass 

mailings were restricted prior to elections, and both chambers 

of Congress empowered bodies to produce regulations regarding the franking privilege for their Members. 

Since 1973, the franking statutes and chamber rules have 

been amended to further restrict use of the frank, including 

prohibitions of the use of private money in the production of 

franked mail material,461 limits on overall franking expenditures,462 public disclosure of individual member franking 

expenditures,463 expanded pre-election restrictions on mass 

mailings,464 and restrictions on the franking privileges of 

congressional committees.465

Jurisdictional History

Since the creation of the Committee in 1946, its role in the 

production of franking legislation can be divided into four 

time periods. From 1946 until 1974, the Committee handled 

no bills related to franking. Between 1974 and 1984, the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 205

Committee occasionally was referred bills that contained 

amendments to the franking statutes, when such amendments were contained in larger bills related to the regulation of federal elections. Between 1984 and 1994, proposals 

for individual accounting of Member franking created an 

additional jurisdiction for the Committee, and the number 

of franking bills referred to the Committee increased. Since 

1995, the Committee has had greater general jurisdiction over 

franking legislation, including jurisdiction over the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards.

Th e Committee had no role in the production of franking legislation until almost 30 years after its creation in 

1946. From the 80th Congress until the 93rd Congress, all 

bills related to franking were referred to either the Committee on the Post Offi ce and Civil Service, the Ways and 

Means Committee, or the Rules Committee. Additionally, 

adjustments to franking statutes were occasionally handled 

in appropriation acts. Although the Committee’s control over 

legislation related to elections provided plausible jurisdiction 

over some potential matters related to the franking privilege, 

between 1946 and 1974 the Committee did not handle any 

franking legislation.

Th e passage of comprehensive franking reform in 1973 

included, for the fi rst time, specifi c restrictions on the use of 

the frank during pre-election campaign periods. During the 

same period, the Committee was routinely handling legislation regulating federal elections in general, many seeking to 

amend the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971. Often, 

these bills contained provisions altering the franking statutes 

in regard to election-year restrictions. Consequently, the 

Committee began to handle some franking legislation. However, most bills related to the franking privilege—and all bills 

in which franking was the only subject matter—continued 

to be referred to other Committees, mainly the Committee 

on the Post Offi ce and Civil Service.

Beginning in the 99th Congress (1985–1986), legislative 

proposals for franking reform began to focus on restricting individual Members’ overall use of the franking privilege. Typically, 

the proposals called either for limited funding in individual 

Member franking accounts, or for public disclosure of franking 

costs for individual Members. Th e Committee was referred both 

types of legislation, under its jurisdiction over “appropriations 

from the contingent fund,” “expenditure of contingent fund,” 

and “measures relating to accounts of the House generally.”466

Th e Committee’s increased role over franking legislation initially refl ected legislative developments of franking 

regulation. As noted above, since 1973 Congress has placed 

greater restrictions on Member use of the frank. Many of 

these restrictions—particularly election-year restrictions and 

individual accountability—overlapped with existing jurisdictions of the Committee over allowances and expenses of 

Members and over “election of . . . Members; . . . corrupt 

practices; contested elections; and Federal elections generally.”467 Beginning in 1989, the Committee’s jurisdiction over 

the franking privilege was explicitly expanded by law. In the 

FY1990 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the Committee was given regulatory authority over the expenditure 

of funds appropriated by Congress for Offi cial Mail Costs.468

In 1995, changes in the rules of the House increased the 

Committee’s role over franking. At the beginning of the 104th

Congress, legislators chose to abolish the Committee on the 

Post Offi ce and Civil Service.469 Matters formerly referred 

to the Committee on the Post Offi ce were redirected to the 

Committee on House Administration (which was called the 

Committee on House Oversight at the time). Th is placed 

jurisdiction over the House Commission on Mailing Standards (the “Franking Commission”) with the Committee 

on House Administration. Th e Committee also continued 

to consider franking through its traditional jurisdiction over 

elections and member allowances.

Th e current jurisdiction of the House Committee on 

Administration over the franking privilege is found in House 

Rule X, clause 1(j).470 Committee jurisdiction exists over 

“appropriations from accounts for...allowances and expenses 

of Members” as well as the “expenditure of [such] accounts.”471

Th e Committee also has legislative jurisdiction over “election 

of . . . Members . . . corrupt practices; contested elections; 

and Federal elections generally.”472 Clause 1(j)(7) gives the 

Committee jurisdiction over the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards. Use of the frank by a House 
206 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Member is governed by statutory provisions, House rules, 

regulations of the Committee, and regulations of the Commission on Congressional Mailings Standards.

Despite its increased jurisdiction over the franking privilege, most current franking law was not produced by the 

Committee. Many of the statutes were enacted prior to the 

Committee gaining a role in the production of franking 

legislation. Many of the franking statutes passed since 1995 

have been placed in Legislative Branch Appropriation Acts. 

However, the Committee has taken the leading role in nonlegislative aspects of franking. Jurisdiction over the Franking 

Commission gives the Committee day-to-day oversight of 

franking operations, and jurisdiction over Member accounts 

allows the Committee to set overall franking expenditures in 

the Member Representational Allowance (MRA). 

Committee Activity, 1974–1984

During the 93rd Congress, the Committee was referred fi ve 

bills containing provisions related to the franking privilege. 

Th ree of the bills sought comprehensive revision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), and included provisions to extend the 28-day pre-election period during which 

Members were prohibited from making mass mailings. Two 

of the bills473 specifi ed a 60-day pre-election prohibition; the 

third bill474 provided for a 90-day ban. Th e Committee did 

not take action on any of the bills.

Th e amendments to FECA reported out of the Committee during the 93rd Congress—H.R. 16090, whose companion bill (S. 3044) was enacted into law475—contained one 

provision related to the franking privilege. Sec. 319 prohibited 

Members from using franked mail to make any solicitation 

of funds. Although such solicitations were arguably already 

prohibited under the franking statute passed earlier in the 93rd

Congress,476 this prohibition was apparently added to insure 

that the practice would be specifi cally prohibited by statute.477

Th e Committee was also referred a bill to extend the 

franking privilege to former Speakers of the House.478 Th e 

Committee took no action on the bill.

During the 94th Congress, the Committee was referred 

three bills that contained provisions on the franking privilege. 

H.R. 11702 and H.R. 11915 were similar measures, both of 

which sought to reform FECA. Each contained a provision 

extending the pre-election mass mailing prohibition from 28 

days to 60 days. Th e third measure, H.R. 11941, provided that 

candidates for federal offi ce (both incumbents and challengers) 

could make bulk mailings up to 14 days prior to an election 

at the same rate of postage charged to non-profi t educational 

organizations. Th e Committee took no action on the bills.

During the 95th Congress, the Committee was again 

referred three measures with provisions on the franking privilege. A bill to amend FECA, H.R. 11315, contained provisions 

that would have prohibited Members from making mass mailings using computer lists established or maintained from campaign contributions. After hearings, the bill was amended and 

reported out of the committee with by a vote of 16-9, but the 

House took no action on it.479 H.R. 5338 would have allowed 

candidates to mail campaign mail at the non-profi t rate, but 

the committee took no action.480 H.Res. 287, based on the recommendations of the House Commission on Administrative 

Review, contained a series of provisions to limit Member use 

of the franking privilege.481 However, jurisdiction over these 

sections of the resolution was given to the Rules Committee. 

Th e House agreed to H.Res. 287 on March 2, 1977.

Only two measures on franking were referred to the Committee between 1979 and 1984, both during the 96th Congress. 

Th e fi rst bill, H.R. 1951, provided for free bulk mailing for all 

candidates for federal offi ces. Th e Committee took no action 

on the measure. Th e second bill, H.R. 5010, proposed amendments to FECA and contained a provision to repeal the prohibition on Members using the frank to solicit campaign funds. 

Th e Committee reported the measure on September 7, 1979; 

it was enacted into law four months later.483

Committee Activity, 1985–1994

Beginning in the 99th Congress, proposals in both chambers to reform Member use of the franking privilege were 

introduced with greater frequency, arguably in response to 

increased Member use of the frank and public attention to 

the costs of the franking privilege.484 Because many of these 

proposals sought to reform franking by limiting its cost or 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 207

ensuring public accountability through public disclosure, 

the Committee was referred franking legislation more often 

than in previous Congresses. In addition, appropriation acts 

in FY1990 and FY1991 gave the Committee new authority 

to regulate Member use of the franking privilege. 

During the 99th Congress, the Committee was referred 

four bills with franking provisions. One of the bills sought to 

limit the total amount of money individual Members could 

use on franked mail during each fi scal year. At the time, funds 

for Member franking were contained in a single general appropriation, “Offi cial Mail Costs,” against which Members were 

not restricted in their use. H. Con. Res. 352 (and companion 

S. Con. Res. 139) would have established a formula for allocating a portion of the appropriation to each Member and 

required the quarterly publishing of individual Member franking expenditures. A second reform bill, H.R. 5172, would have 

prohibited federal funds from being used for the mass mailing 

of congressional newsletters, eff ectively ending most mass 

mailings.485 Both measures were referred to the subcommittee 

on Accounts, but no further action was taken.486

Another measure referred to the Committee, S. Con. 

Res. 91, called for public disclosure in the Congressional 

Record of the individual Member costs of mass-mailings. Th e 

resolution passed the Senate and was referred to the Committee. Th e Committee referred it to the subcommittee on 

Procurement and Printing, but no further action was taken.487

Finally, the Committee was referred one piece of legislation during the 99th Congress, S. 1995, which was enacted 

into law.488 Th e bill provided for the use of franked mail in 

the location and recovery of missing children. Members who 

chose to participate in the program could have the names and 

pictures of missing children placed on the outside of franked 

mail envelopes. Although the Committee was referred the 

legislation,489 it was reported out of the Committee on the 

Post Offi ce and Civil Service, to which it was also referred.490

During the 100th Congress, the Committee was only 

referred one measure related to the franking privilege, H. Con 

Res. 54, which was identical to H. Con Res. 352 in the 99th 

Congress, and which would have limited individual Member 

franking and provided for public disclosure of individual 

Member franking expenditures. The committee took no 

action on the resolution.491

During the 101st Congress, a number of changes involving mailings and use of the frank were made in appropriations 

bills, and specifi c authority was granted to the Committee on 

House Administration. In 1989, the postmaster general was 

directed to provide various reports on the costs of franked 

mail to, in the House, the clerk of the House, Commission 

on Congressional Mailing Standards (then under the Post 

Offi ce and Civil Service Committee), and Committee on 

House Administration. Th e Commission on Congressional 

Mailing Standards, and the Committee on House Administration were directed to “consider promulgating such regulations” that would ensure total mailing costs would not exceed 

amounts made available for a fi scal year.492

In 1990, House spending of appropriated funds for 

franked mail were made subject to specifi c regulation by the 

Committee on House Administration.493 Th e postmaster 

general was directed to report on individual Member’s spending for franked mail, and the Postal Service, in consultation 

with the Committee on House Administration, was prohibited from delivering franked mail in excess of a Member’s 

allocation.494 An Offi cial Mail Allowance was established 

in the House for Members, offi cers, and employees entitled 

to use the frank, subject to regulations promulgated by the 

Committee on House Administration with respect to the 

allocation and expenditures relating to the allowance and to 

regulations promulgated by the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards relating to matters under 39 U.S.C. 

§3210(a)(6)(D).495 Prior to individual franking accountability, 

the Postal Service had charged Congress for franked mail 

by weight, using formulas to approximate cost. After the 

switch to an individual system, the Committee implemented 

fi rst a manual accounting system,496 and then a centralized 

automated system.497 After implementation of these reforms, 

overall spending on franked mail decreased.498

Between the 101st and 103rd Congress, 54 bills related 

to the franking privilege were referred to the Committee. 

Th e bills included such provisions as abolishing the franking 

privilege,499 barring mass mailings during election years,500
208 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

limiting the size of each Member’s mail cost allowance,501

extending the franking privilege to non-incumbent candidates for federal offi ce,502 and barring mass mailings outside 

of a Member’s own district.503 Th e Committee reported only 

two of the measures, H.R. 3750 of the 102nd Congress and 

H.R. 3 of the 103rd Congress. In both instances, the committee struck language prohibiting use of the frank outside of a 

Member’s own district before reporting the bill.

During the 102nd Congress, the House directed the 

Committee to conduct an investigation of illegal activities 

within the House Post Offi ce, including abuse of the franking privilege granted to the Postmaster.504 Th e investigation 

concluded that the Postmaster had loaned his frank to Members in violation of the 1991 legislation requiring individual 

accountability.505 Th e investigation also found that the Postmaster had systematically overstated the volume of incoming mail to Congress in order to justify hiring additional 

employee, inadvertently aff ecting congressional debate over 

franking costs and potential reforms.506

Committee Activity, 1994-present

When Republicans organized the House in the 104th Congress after winning a majority of House seats in the 1994 

election, they made a number of changes in committee organization. In agreeing to rules changes for the 104th Congress (1995–1996),507 the House reconstituted its standing 

committees, including renaming the Committee on House 

Administration as the House Oversight Committee. Jurisdiction over the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 

Standards508—popularly known as the Franking Commission—was transferred to the House Oversight Committee 

from the Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee, which 

was not reconstituted as a committee.

Th e commission implements federal law on use of the 

franking privilege (especially 39 U.S.C. §3210), applicable rules 

and orders of the House, and regulations that the commission 

has promulgated. After the Post Offi ce Department ceased 

issuing advisory opinions on the frankability of mail and the 

general use of the franking privilege in 1968, Congress sought 

to curtail what was seen as improper use of the frank, passing 

a comprehensive franking law in 1973.509 Th e law created the 

House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (the 

“Franking Commission”), which was to be composed of three 

members of each party, chosen by the Speaker of the House, 

and chaired by a member of the Committee on the Post Offi ce 

and Civil Service, also chosen by the Speaker.

Th e Commission, which was created on December 18, 

1973, is authorized “to (1) issue regulations governing the 

proper use of the franking privilege; (2) to provide guidance 

in connection with mailings; (3) to act as a quasi-judicial body 

for the disposition of formal complaints against Members of 

Congress who have allegedly violated franking laws or regulations.”510 Th e commission consists of six Members chosen by 

the Speaker, three from each major political party, as well as 

a chairman selected by the Speaker from among the Members 

on the Committee on House Administration.511

In practice, the Committee on House Administration 

and the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards 

have been largely integrated. Th e Speaker appoints three 

members of each party to the Franking Commission, and 

designates one as chair. While members of the commission, except the chair, do not under federal law have to be 

members of the Committee on House Administration, 

Speakers since the 104th Congress have often appointed 

members of the Committee on House Administration to 

the commission. Th e professional staff of the Committee 

work closely with the staff of the Commission, which currently numbers six. Staff of the Commission share offi ce 

space with the Committee, and are paid through funding 

allocated to the Committee.

Th e day-to-day operations of the Franking Commission are extensive. Th e Commission off ers both formal and 

informal advisory opinions on the frankability of roughly six 

to eight thousand pieces of mail each year.512 Since its establishment in 1973, the Commission has issued regulations and 

made rulings regarding, among other things, the allowable 

content of franked mail, the size, number, and placement of 

photographs in franked newsletters, and the public inspection 

of Member mass mailings.513
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 209

 Th e Commission also handles, on average, about four or 

fi ve complaints each year about particular pieces of franked 

mail. After a fi nding of fact, the Commission is empowered 

to punish Members if appropriate. Inadvertent violations usually result in the Member simply reimbursing the House for 

the cost of the mailing. More serious violations can result in 

Members losing a portion of their representational allowance, 

or referral to the House for further action.514

Th e Committee also has the regular responsibility to 

keep Members informed of the various seasonal rules and 

deadlines associated with franking. Th e Committee sends out 

several “Dear Colleague” letters each year regarding franking, 

asking Members to submit their mass mailing information 

each quarter, informing them of upcoming mass mail election year cutoff s, and reminding them about the frankability 

status of seasonal items, such as holiday cards. After assuming 

jurisdiction over the Franking Commission, the Committee began holding occasional seminars to train staff about 

franking regulations, distributing information to Member 

offi ces on regulation changes, and preparing updates to the 

“Red Book,” the offi cial regulations on the use of the frank. 

During the 104th Congress, the Committee made several 

adjustments to Member franking privileges. Th e total amount 

available in Members offi cial mail allowance was set at 45% of 

the statutory maximum,515 which represented a 1/3 reduction 

from the previous maximum, which had been set in 1992.516

Offi cial mail costs for each Member were combined with 

clerk-hire and the offi cial expense allowance into one account, 

the Member’s Representational Allowance (MRA). Total 

expenditures on franking were still limited to the offi cial mail 

cost portion of the MRA, plus up to $25,000 that Members 

could transfer from the rest of the account.517

Finally, the Committee adopted a ban on all unsolicited 

mass mailings occurring within 90 days of an election.518

In April 1995, the Committee held a hearing on franking 

reform, to gather ideas for legislation related to the use of the 

frank.519 Th e Committee took testimony from eight House 

Members on a variety of plans to reform Member use of the 

franking privilege.520 No bills related to the franking privilege 

were referred to the committee during the 104th Congress. 

However, several of the committee regulations were enacted 

into law in appropriations acts.

During the 105th Congress, the Committee issued Committee Order No. 42, which removed the Offi cial Mail Cost 

sub-limit from the Members Representational Allowance. 

Beginning with FY1999, Members were allowed to use any 

portion of their offi cial budget for franked mail costs.521

During the 106th Congress, the Committee adopted a 

policy requiring advisory opinions for all unsolicited mass 

communications.522 Th e Committee was also referred three 

bills related to the franking privilege. H.R. 1739 would have 

banned mass mailings in election years. H.R. 596 would have 

prohibited most mass mailings by Members. Th e Committee 

did not take action on either measure. A third measure, H.R. 

417 was reported unfavorably by the committee. As part of a 

larger set of campaign-fi nance reforms, the legislation would 

have prohibited mass mailings 180 days prior to the general 

elections and 90 days prior to primary elections.

During the 107th Congress, the committee established 

new franking regulations regarding email. Th e new policy 

required that Members treat mass email communications 

in the same manner as mass mailings. Th e committee was 

referred fi ve bills related to the franking privilege. Two of the 

measures, H.R. 833 and H.R. 380, were identical in respects 

to franking as legislation introduced in the 106th Congress 

(H.R. 596 and H.R. 417, respectively). Th e Committee took 

no action on H.R. 833. Further action on H.R. 380 was 

taken in the form of H.R. 2356, which did not contain the 

provisions related to the franking privilege.523

The Committee was also referred H.R. 533, which 

would have redefi ned mass mailing to include all mailings of 

more than 250 (instead of 500) pieces, prohibited candidates 

from making mass mailings less than 180 days before the 

general election, and required publication of MRA expenditures in the Congressional Record. Finally, the Committee was 

referred H.R. 1637, which contained provisions that would 

have restricted election year mass mailings during the period 

beginning 90 days prior to a Member’s primary election and 
210 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

ending on the day of the general election. Th e Committee 

took no action on either bill.

During both the 108th and 109th Congress, the committee was referred two bills related to the franking privilege, 

both similar to legislation previously introduced. H.R. 3641 

and H.R. 3099 (108th and 109th Congress, respectively) contained provisions that would have restricted election year 

mass mailings during the period beginning 90 days prior to 

a Member’s primary election and ending on the day of the 

general election. Th e Committee took no action on either 

bill. H.R. 820 and H.R. 3121 would have prohibited most 

mass mailings by Members. During the 108th Congress, the 

Committee also developed new regulations for Member use 

of constituent communications via electronic mail, which had 

formerly been treated the same as regular mail.524

During the 109th Congress, in response to allegations 

of misuse, the committee also passed a resolution restricting 

mass mailings made by House committees.525 Th e committee funding resolution for the 109th Congress (H. Res. 224) 

limits House committees to an aggregate franking cost of 

$5,000, and prohibits the use of committee funds for the 

production of material for a mass mailing unless the mailing 

falls under specifi c exceptions related to committee business. 

Before mailing, the chairman or ranking minority member 

of the committee must submit a sample of the material to the 

House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards 

for approval. In addition, no committee may frank into a 

Member’s district within 90 days of an election to which the 

Member is a candidate. 

During the 110th Congress, the committee was referred 

three bills related to the franking privilege. H.R. 1614, as part 

of a series of campaign fi nance reforms, would have restricted 

election year mass mailings during the period beginning 90 

days prior to a Member’s primary election and ending on the 

day of the general election. H.R. 2788 would have required 

each mass mailing to be labeled with the cost of the mailing. 

H.R. 2687 would have eff ectively prohibited Representatives 

from mass mailing newsletters, questionnaires, or congratulatory notices. Th e Committee took no action on any of the 

bills. Th e committee also amended disclosure regulations, 

requiring Members to report mass communication activity 

to the Finance Offi ce.526

During the 111th Congress, the committee was referred 

two bills related to the franking privilege. H.R. 2056 would 

have restricted election year mass mailings during the period 

beginning 90 days prior to a Member’s primary or general 

election. H.R. 5151 would have prohibited any use of the 

MRA for all offi cial mail expenses except those transmitted 

under offi cial letterhead, and also would have required the 

quarterly breakdown of offi cial mail expenses be separated 

by method of mass communication. Committee took no 

action on any of the bills. 

During the 112th Congress, the Commission agreed to 

several changes to the Regulations on the Use of the Congressional Frank By Members of the House of Representatives and 

Rules of Practice in Proceedings Before the House Commission 

on Congressional Mailings Standards (Franking Manual), 

the principal document which regulates the Congressional 

franking privilege.

Th e main principle behind this update is to allow Members of Congress to best communicate with constituents while 

preserving accountability for the use of the frank through 

increased transparency.

Concurrent with the passage of this manual, the Commission will implement a completely paperless franking 

review/advisory system and an online public archive of franking request via the new Franking Commission web site, which 

will enables the American people to quickly and easily reference their Member of Congress’ use of the frank. All three 

components will be fully operational and eff ective at the start 

of the 113th Congress.527

Some of the revision to the new franking manual 

includes:

• Th e Commission’s authority to regulate mass communication content and then sets forth the guidelines and 

procedures for mass communications. 

• As passed by the Committee on House Administration 

on July 14, 2010, an expansion of categories added to 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 211

the list authorized advertisements.

• Members are authorized to determine what constitutes 

a public distinction. Th e Commission emphasizes that 

the matter should related to some public purpose.

• Letters consisting solely of birthday, wedding, anniversary, retirement, or personal achievement are only 

frankable when in direct response to a specifi c request.

• Monumental life events may be recognized in direct 

response to a request, to bring policy in line with other 

government offi cials such as the White House (Ex. 80th 

birthday, 50th wedding anniversary, etc.).

• A holiday greeting is allowable only when incidental in 

a communication that is otherwise offi cial in nature.

• Personally phrased references contained in a mass mailing should not appear on average of more than eight 

times per page. Pronouns will not count as personal 

references.

• Th e number of photos the Member may appear on per page 

was increased to three. Th e total area of a page that may be 

covered by photographs remains at 20% of the page.

• Th e strict restriction on two party labels per page has 

been replaced with a general caution on the excessive use 

of party labels.

• Codifies existing policy on the use of quotations in 

context from the original source.

• A “Procedures and Reporting” chapter was added to the 

Manual as a one-stop resource for Members and staff 

to reference the required franking processes and public reporting procedures. Th is includes procedures for 

requesting an Advisory Opinion and how to complete 

a mass mailing in the House offi ce building complex. 

Finally, the two main franking reports, the Monthly 

District Mass Mailing Report, and the Quarterly Mass 

Mail and Communications Report have been added for 

convenient reference.

• Staff Advisory Opinions will now be issued electronically and posted for public disclosure on the Franking 

Commission’s website. 

Th e Committee also directed that, beginning in the second quarter of 2011, the CAO of the House provides separate 

mass mailing and mass communication data in the quarterly 

Statement of Disbursements disclosure of Member use of 

offi cial mass mailings and mass communications. 

Administrative and Financial Operations:

Oversight of Offi cers and a Changing Role for 

the Committee

Role of Committee

Since 1947, the Committee on House Administration has 

played a unique role in shaping the House through its 

authority to oversee the administration and management 

of services provided to Members, congressional staff , and 

Capitol Hill visitors. Th e Committee’s responsibilities as 

chief overseer are delineated in House Rules and statute, 

as well as language in reports accompanying the annual 

legislative branch appropriations bills. 

In its Rules, the House specifi cally gives the Committee jurisdiction over “[a]ll bills, resolutions and other matters 

relating to . . . services to the House, including the House 

Restaurant, parking facilities, and administration of the 

House Offi ce Buildings and of the House wing of the Capitol.”528 Pursuant to this language, the Committee reviews 

projects, policies, and other initiatives of House offi cers; the 

House Inspector General; House Information Resources; the 

Architect of the Capitol; and the U.S. Capitol Police. Among 

the hundreds of measures referred to the Committee relating 

to House services – many of which are more fully detailed in 

other sections of this committee history – have been proposals 

modernizing food service operations, reorganizing the House 

Barber and Beauty Shops, limiting use of offi cial automobiles 

by Members and offi cers, establishing guidelines for use of 

House supplies and offi ce equipment, use of the frank, House 

pages, parking, administration of offi ce buildings; and access 

and security. 

Th e Committee has continually reexamined the administrative and fi nancial support structure of the House and 

instituted reforms in response to events both within and 

beyond Congress, a role which has frequently involved 

approving changes to the House staffi ng structure. One of the 

fi rst actions taken by the Committee was to approve, on April 

29, 1947, the establishment of a new Offi ce of Coordinator of 

Information for the House. Th e proposal was adopted by the 

House on May 2, 1947. Th e Coordinator, who was appointed 

by the Speaker, had primary responsibility to collect, analyze, 
212 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

coordinate, and make available in digests or compilations, 

non-partisan data on legislation for use by House Member 

offi ces and committees.529 Th e position was abolished in 1967. 

As with this early example, the Committee has been involved 

in the establishment of numerous House positions and in the 

oversight of their duties, reorganization, and occasionally 

their dissolution.

Unsuccessful Attempt to Expand into Ethics. Although 

the Committee has provided oversight of the operations of the 

House, it historically has not been responsible for investigating alleged ethics violations. Th e Committee did, however, 

attempt to gain entry into this area on at least one occasion. In 

the late 1960s, the Committee held hearings on allegations of 

improper use of House contract money. Th e hearings were the 

outgrowth of an eff ort in 1966 by Chairman Omar Burleson to 

rename the Special Subcommittee on Contacts the Permanent 

Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts and to redefi ne the 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction to include oversight of alleged ethics violations by Members. Th is move was primarily in response 

to allegations of improper use of congressional personnel by 

Adam Clayton Powell of New York.530

During debate on the Committee’s funding in 1967, 

some Members expressed opposition to the development. 

Charles E. Bennett of Florida argued that the Committee 

did not have such jurisdiction and it was inappropriate for the 

House to allocate funds in the resolution specifi cally for ethics 

investigations by the Committee on House Administration. 

Burleson responded that in changing the Subcommittee’s 

title to include the word “ethics,” the Committee deemed 

it appropriate to investigate ethics issues and intended to 

use Committee funds for this purpose.531 Bennett’s position 

prevailed and the resolution, as adopted, did not recognize 

the new Subcommittee and specifi cally prohibited the use 

of funds in the resolution to investigate ethics issues under 

consideration in another House committee. 

Although these provisions in eff ect prohibited the Subcommittee on Contracts from formally investigating alleged 

violations of the House Code of Conduct, they did not prevent the Subcommittee from conducting hearings on individual cases of alleged misconduct. Subsequently, the House 

adopted H.Res. 418 (90th Congress), which created a new 

House committee to enforce standards of offi cial conduct 

and draft a new Code of Offi cial Conduct.532 Th e Committee 

on House Administration, however, retained its authority to 

investigate and recommend actions to be taken with regard 

to the misuse of House operating funds.

Oversight of Offi cers: Committee’s Evolving Outlook

Since 1947, the Committee’s oversight of the House offi cers 

has gone through two fairly well defi ned phases – from policy 

administrator to policy advisor.

Policy Administrator. From 1947 to 2001, the Committee served as the primary House entity responsible for 

providing policy direction to the House offi cers, ensuring 

the proper implementation of those policies, and approving 

requests on a range of personnel issues.533

During this period, the Committee routinely considered: (1) requests from offi cers for permanent and temporary 

employee positions; (2) adjustments in employee pay and 

related benefi ts; reorganizations of staff in administrative 

offi ces; (3) reclassifi cations of positions; and (4) changes in 

job titles and duties. In the fi rst session of the 98th Congress 

(1983–1984), for example, the Committee received and 

approved requests from the House Clerk: (1) to reorganize the 

Legislative Offi ce; (2) to review and reclassify supervisory personnel; (3) to reclassify and change the titles of two positions 

in his immediate offi ce; (4) to abolish two House telephone 

operator positions; (5) to create 20 temporary summer clerks; 

(6) to reorganize the Finance Offi ce; (7) to reclassify one 

additional position; and (8) to abolish four other positions. 

Th e Committee also approved requests by the Doorkeeper to 

establish three positions for the new, bi-partisan Cloakroom, 

and a request from the Sergeant at Arms for four additional 

sergeant positions.534

In the fi rst session of the 99th Congress (1985–1986), 

the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police was required to 

act on more than 1,000 personnel requests placed by offi cers. 

Th e Subcommittee did so while handling a number of other 

non-personnel requests from not only the offi cers, but also 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 213

Members and committees. Among these proposals were those 

for assistance in securing additional equipment, setting policy 

guidelines on equipment use, limiting television sets in committee offi ces, and changing the types of equipment on the 

House “approved equipment” list. 

Th e Committee’s far-reaching authority over daily operations of the House was formally granted on April 9, 1992, 

when the chamber adopted H.Res. 423 of the 102nd Congress 

(1991–1992), the House Administrative Reform Resolution 

of 1992. Th e resolution amended House Rules by formally 

adding to the duties of the Committee the responsibility of 

providing “policy direction for, and oversight of, the Clerk, 

Sergeant at Arms, Doorkeeper, Director of Non-Legislative 

and Financial Services, and Inspector General.”535

Th e resolution also contained detailed policy direction 

instructions to the Committee for the operations of the Offi ce 

of the Inspector General, which had been newly created,536 

and the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services.537

Th e Director was: (1) “subject to the policy direction and 

oversight of the Committee on House Administration” in 

carrying out his “operational and fi nancial responsibility 

for functions assigned by resolution of the House,” and (2) 

“subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on House Administration” in the development of 

“employment standards that provide that all employment 

decisions for functions under the Director’s supervision be 

made in accordance with the non-discrimination provisions 

of [House Rules].”538 Th e House placed full authority in the 

Committee for oversight and regulation of the transfer of 

selected jurisdictions from the House offi cers to the Director. 

 H.Res. 423 contained similar policy direction and oversight language with respect to the Inspector General (IG), 

whose responsibilities would include conducting audits of 

fi nancial activities of the Director of Non-Legislative and 

Financial Services, Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, and Doorkeeper. 

At the beginning of the 104th Congress (1995–1996), 

the Committee’s jurisdiction over these four offi cers was reinforced in H.Res. 6, which amended the Rules to implement 

a number of reforms in House operations. A major provision 

of these reforms replaced the Director of Non-Legislative and 

Financial Services with the position of House Chief Administrative Offi cer, who was given operational and fi nancial 

management responsibilities for House operations. H.Res. 

6 made the Chief Administrative Offi cer “subject to policy 

direction and oversight of the Speaker and the Committee 

on House Oversight.539

The House inserted language further strengthening 

the oversight role of the Committee over offi cers by placing 

very specifi c reporting requirements on the Clerk, Sergeant 

at Arms, and Chief Administrative Offi cer. Th e resolution 

required them to: 

report to the Committee on House Oversight not 

later than forty-fi ve days following the close of 

each semiannual period ending on June 30 or on 

December 31 on the financial and operational 

status of each function under [the offi cer’s jurisdiction] . . . Each report shall include fi nancial 

statements, a description or explanation of current 

operations, the implementation of new policies 

and procedures, and future plans for each function . . . [each offi cer] shall fully cooperate with 

the appropriate offi ces and persons in the performance of reviews and audits of fi nancial records 

and administrative operations.540

Other House reforms adopted at the beginning of the 

104th Congress (1995–1996): (1) directed that audits of House 

fi nancial and administrative functions be conducted by the 

Inspector General; (2) abolished the Offi ce of Doorkeeper, 

transferring most of its duties to the Chief Administrative 

Offi cer; and (3) directed the House Clerk to “fully cooperate 

with the appropriate offi ces and persons in the performance 

of reviews and audits of fi nancial records and administrative 

operations.”541 Concurrently, the name of the Committee 

was changed to Committee on House Oversight to refl ect its 

expanded role in supervisory review of House operations. Th e 

positions of Chief Administrative Offi cer and Inspector General were partially designed to remove the time-consuming 
214 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

administrative and auditing responsibilities the Committee 

previously had performed.

Policy Advisor. In 2001, when allegations arose of abuse 

in the use of House services, the Chamber became more interested in freeing the Committee from daily operational concerns 

and allowing it to assume a broader, more analytic, approach 

to oversight of the offi cers’ activities.542 Th e Rules deleted references to the Committee’s responsibility for policy direction for 

the Clerk, Chief Administrative Offi cer, and Sergeant at Arms, 

while retaining it for the House Inspector General. Th e Committee retains authority for oversight for all of these offi ces.

Th e shift to general oversight of the House offi cers’ operations since 2001 is evident from a review of the Committee’s oversight plan for House offi cers in the 108th Congress 

(2003–2004). Th e plan called on the Committee to:

• “analyze management improvement proposals and other 

initiatives submitted by the House Offi cers, the Inspector General and the Architect of the Capitol;

• coordinate with the [Committee on Appropriations] on 

matters impacting operations of the House and joint 

entities;

• provide policy guidance to the House Offi cers, Inspector 

General and the Joint entities as appropriate;

• oversee compliance with the House Employee Classifi cation Act, 2 U.S.C. § 291, et seq.;

• assure coordination among offi cers and joint entities on 

administrative matters;

• continue review of “congressional continuity” issues, 

including organizing sessions of Congress at alternate 

locations and technological support for Member communications and chamber operations; and,

• provide policy guidance and conduct oversight of security and safety issues and congressional entities charged 

with such roles.”543

Th ese plans further called for specifi c reviews by the 

Committee of the activities of individual offi cers, some of 

which, for example were detailed in the committee’s activity 

report for the 108th Congress:

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Exercising its 

revised oversight authority, the Committee reviewed a variety 

of areas, including: procedures for processing contracts between 

the House and private sector entities exceeding $250,000; the 

operation of the CAO’s fi nancial management system; alternatives in the House mail delivery procedure; new technology initiatives; and the operation of House Information Resources.544

Clerk of the House. In its oversight of the Clerk’s activities in 2003-2004, the Committee reviewed: the administration of House fl oor audio transmission system; contracts 

pending before the Clerk’s offi ce; requests for contract proposals exceeding the $250,000 threshold; and operations of 

the document management system. In related actions, the 

Committee reviewed and revised defi nitions of “standards” 

for the electronic exchange of legislative information among 

Congress and legislative branch agencies; functions and 

administrative operations assigned to the Clerk; and semiannual fi nancial and operations status reports.545

Sergeant at Arms. With House security measures a top 

priority of both the Committee and the Offi ce of the Sergeant 

at Arms, the Committee reviewed (1) security operations in 

the House, including those of the House Chamber, galleries, Capitol building, House offi ce buildings, and grounds 

adjacent to these structures; (2) security procedures in House 

garages and parking lots; (3) regulations for allocation and 

use of House parking spaces; (4) impact of electronic access to 

secured space in the House side of the Capitol and the House 

offi ce buildings; and (5) Capitol Police security plans, with 

emphasis on policies governing visitor access to the Capitol.546

Th e Committee further examined the semi-annual fi nancial 

and operations status reports of the Sergeant at Arms, and the 

functions and administrative operations assigned to him, and 

recommended changes. 

Inspector General. In setting policy direction for the 

Inspector General (IG), the Committee reviewed proposed 

audit plans for the Congress; examined completed audit 

reports; and oversaw implementation of a Committee directive requiring the IG to issue advisories to the House, in 

which the IG made suggestions on improvements in House 

operations.547
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 215

Infl uence of Administrative Reform and Impact of 

Legislative Action

Th e Committee has played a pivotal role in: (1) developing House administrative reform proposals; (2) supporting 

study commissions and the House as they considered the 

consequences of changes in the House service structure; 

and, (3) providing key direction in implementing and oversight management of number of reforms with major impact 

on House operations. Faced with increased demands on its 

time and services the House in the 1960s and 1970s began 

a major review of its administrative organization. Its goal 

was to attempt to turn the House of Representatives into a 

more effi cient, modern entity that could keep pace with the 

considerable demands placed on the institution by its own 

growth and by the information age. 

1970 Legislative Reorganization Act. Th e 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, which addressed a number of 

issues that had been considered by the Committee on House 

Administration, began with the creation of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in March 1965, and concluded when the House concurred in Senate amendments to 

H.R. 17654 on October 8, 1970. Congress then sent the measure to the President, who signed it on October 26, 1970.548

Th e directive to the 1965 Joint Committee was the same 

essentially as that given to the 1945 Joint Committee on 

the Organization of Congress, which had led to the 1946 

Legislative Reorganization Act creating the Committee on 

House Administration. Th e resolution creating the 1965 Joint 

Committee stated that the joint committee was to “make a 

full and complete study of the organization and operation of 

the Congress . . . [and] recommend improvements in such 

organization and operation with a view toward strengthening the Congress, simplifying its operations, improving its 

relationship with other branches of the United States Government and enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under 

the Constitution.” Th e Joint Committee issued its fi nal report 

on July 28, 1966, with 120 recommended changes to the 

operation of Congress, ranging from those aff ecting the committee system to the imposition of fi scal controls to increases 

in staffi ng.550 Although legislation was introduced in both 

houses, no further action was taken that session. 

In 1969, the House Rules Committee Special Subcommittee on Legislative Reorganization considered some 

selected reform recommendations of the 1965 joint committee and reported H.R. 17654, the Legislative Branch Reorganization Act of 1970.551 Although most of the legislation 

addressed the committee system and budget matters, it also 

contained administrative proposals conferring additional 

authorities on the Committee on House Administration. 

Th e 1970 Act ensured the prominent role of the Committee in future House reform eff orts by directing it to support the newly-created Joint Committee on Congressional 

Operations. Th e Joint Committee was instructed to continue Congress’ study of its organization and operations, 

to recommend improvements, and to oversee the Offi ce of 

Placement and Offi ce Management.552 Further, the Committee on House Administration’s oversight of accountability 

in House operations was supplemented by the granting of 

authority to the General Accounting Offi ce553 to conduct 

annual audits of private organizations performing services, 

or conducting activities, within the Capitol Complex buildings and grounds. 

Additional provisions aff ecting pay impacted the Committee’s oversight duties in this area. Th ese provisions converted the existing “base” pay system for employees of the 

House and Architect of the Capitol to a “gross” pay system, 

making it easier to determine employee salary rates, and 

required the Committee on House Administration to approve 

deadlines set by the House Clerk for Member notifi cation to 

the Clerk of changes in staff salaries. 

1973 Select Committee on Committees. Th e Committee continued to exercise its infl uence in reform eff orts by 

pushing for administrative changes not addressed in the 1970 

Reorganization Act when the House created a new Select 

Committee on Committees in 1973. Th e Select Committee 

was established by H.Res. 132 (93rd Congress, 1973–1974) 

in response to widespread Member dissatisfaction with the 

existing committee structure. Designed primarily to study 
216 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House committee operations, the Select Committee conducted exhaustive studies of jurisdictions, staffi ng, space, 

equipment, and other issues.554 Although directed to make 

recommendations primarily on the House committee system 

organization, the Select Committee made a number of recommendations in 1974 on House administrative operations. 

Among changes recommended by the Select Committee and contained in H.Res. 988, adopted by the House on 

October 8, 1974, were those expanding the House Administration’s jurisdiction to include responsibility for parking 

facilities and the management and administration of House 

restaurants, while eliminating the Committee’s jurisdiction over arrangements for memorial services for deceased 

Members. Th e resolution also required the House Information Systems, under direction of the Committee on House 

Administration, to make available a committee and subcommittee scheduling service to minimize meeting confl icts. It 

also required committee chairmen to fi le foreign travel reports 

with the Committee on House Administration, which was 

directed to maintain them for public inspection.555

Another provision of H.Res. 988 provided for a Commission on Information and Facilities, which, after its establishment in December 1974,556 relied primarily on the support 

of the Committee on House Administration. Th e Commission’s creation refl ected a growing concern on the part of some 

Members that the increasing range of issues being considered 

by Congress was straining available information and analysis 

and that the necessary increase in staff to support Members 

had surpassed physical space and facilities. To facilitate the 

Commission’s work, the Committee, along with House Information Systems, provided resources to two task forces of the 

Commission – the Task Force on Information Resources and 

the Task Force on Facilities and Space Utilization. From this 

collaborative eff ort, the group produced an inventory of information sources available to the House, oversaw the permanent 

installation of a 30-terminal system of computers available to 

Members and committees that provided access to a legislative 

statutes service, Library of Congress databases, and databases 

at the Departments of Justice and Agriculture.557

One of the Select Committee proposals, which was not 

adopted at the time, was to establish a commission to conduct a 

comprehensive study of the internal House administration system, to be composed of Representatives and private citizens.558

1976 Commission on Administrative Review. On 

July 1, 1976, the House adopted H.Res. 1368 (94th Congress), 

which authorized a 15-member Commission on Administrative Review to conduct a thorough and complete study the 

chamber’s administrative operations and make recommendations concerning these operation no later than December 31, 

1977. Th e Committee on House Administration was represented on the Commission by Representative Bill Frenzel.559

Th e idea for the Commission “originated with the Select 

Committee on Committees, under the chairmanship of Congressman Richard Bolling, and was again supported by the 

Task Force on House Accounts, headed by Congressman 

David Obey, in June 1976.”560 Th e idea of such a commission 

had begun to gain momentum after Representative Wayne 

Hays, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, was accused of employing a woman on the staff of the 

Committee who did little or no work. Bowing to pressure 

from the House Democratic leadership, Hays resigned as 

chairman of the Committee on House Administration on 

June 18. Two-and-a-half months later, he gave up his seat in 

the House after the House Select Committee on Standards of 

Offi cial Conduct (Ethics Committee) voted to begin hearings 

into his personal relationship with the former staff member.561

Th e Commission on Administrative Review spent more 

than a year gathering data on a wide variety of aspects of 

the administration of the House, relying on the in-depth 

research of the House Administration members and staff , 

the Committee’s recommendations at various stages of the 

Commission’s work. Chaired by David Obey of Wisconsin, 

the Commission issued three reports, with the third containing recommendations for a consolidation of administrative 

responsibilities among elected offi cers in the House, and a 

strengthening of management and fi nancial controls.562

Th e Commission recommended the creation of a new 

offi cer, a House Administrator, who would be in charge of 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 217

most of the House administrative functions, from payment 

of House bills and preparation of fi nancial reports to maintenance of furniture and equipment, to personnel assistance 

for Members and operation of the telephone and computer 

networks. It also recommended hiring an auditor to perform 

regular reviews of House operations, a long-time, key proposal 

of the Committee on House Administration. Included in the 

Commission’s report was a large section on personnel issues, 

which echoed recommendations from the 1970 Legislative 

Reorganization Act when it called for a central, professional 

offi ce to help recruit staff for Members and committees. It 

also called for the creation of a grievance panel to hear discrimination complaints from administrative staff ers and a 

fair employment practices panel to be composed of sitting 

Members who would review staff grievances from Member 

and committee offi ces.563

Th e Commission issued its report on “Administrative 

Reorganization and Legislative Management” in September 

1977, but the recommendations were never considered on 

the fl oor because the House rejected the rule for its consideration ( H.Res. 766).564 Although the House did not adopt the 

proposals, a few realignments in the jurisdictions of House 

offi cers were agreed to informally. More importantly, the 

Commission’s recommendations laid the groundwork for 

adoption of a number of signifi cant changes in the administrative structure of the House in the 1980s and 1990s.

1981 Committee on House Administration Reorganization. At the beginning of the 97th Congress (1981–1982), 

Chairman Gus Hawkins of California initiated an internal 

reorganization of the Committee to enable it to operate more 

efficiently, reduce expenses, and streamline its managerial 

jurisdiction within the House. His concept emphasized that: 

(1) specifi c duties be assigned to each Committee employee, 

with each to report to a supervisor; (2) duties performed by staff 

must fall within the Committee’s jurisdiction; and (3) future 

responsibilities assigned to the Committee be integrated into 

its structure so as to minimize the need for additional staff . 

Chairman Hawkins recommended a 20% reduction in 

the Committee’s budget for calendar year 1981, which was 

agreed to by the House that March. At his request, the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials was eliminated and 

the Subcommittee on Contracts and the Subcommittee on 

Printing combined; all staff positions on the Policy Group on 

Information and Computers were eliminated;565 the House 

Information Systems Staff Orientation and Training Programs were terminated, since similar services were provided 

by the Congressional Research Service; and a Task Force on 

Committee Organization was established to study, and make 

recommendations on, the internal organization and jurisdiction of the Committee. Th e Task Force was directed to study 

only housekeeping functions carried out by the Committee, 

and not those of the Speaker, House offi cers, and Architect 

of the Capitol.566

On April 1, 1981, the Task Force proposed several 

administrative changes, which were unanimously approved 

by the full Committee. Th ese called for a reduction in the 

Committee’s staff ; realignment of subcommittees; elimination of the Offi ce of Management Services; restructuring 

the Congressional Placement Offi ce (renamed the House 

Placement Office, to reflect its new service to the House 

exclusively); transfer of the Placement Offi ce’s operations to 

the Clerk, who was directed to submit his request for staff to 

the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police; elimination of 

the Professional Development Program; transfer of Management Consultation Service functions to the Offi ce of Member 

Services of House Information Systems; and transfer of publication of the House Telephone Directory and other documents to the Publications Division of the Clerk’s Offi ce.567

Another set of Task Force recommendations, approved 

by the Committee on May 6, 1981: (1) consolidated the technical services of House Information Systems (H.I.S.) into 

one unit to reduce staff ; (2) required Committee approval of 

new development projects; (3) changed the emphasis of the 

Members Services Division, from public relations to provision of offi ce automation services; (4) authorized professional 

staff to provide technical and training assistance to Members 

and staff ; (5) required establishment of a permanent “Model 

Offi ce” to demonstrate offi ce automation capabilities; and 
218 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

(6) established a policy for reimbursement to the House by 

Members for H.I.S. services.568

During a Committee meeting on July 27, 1981, Chairman Hawkins announced the opening of an Offi ce of Management Demonstration and Training Center to provide 

more effi cient, cost-eff ective support services to Members, by 

providing a central location to display computer equipment 

on the House-approved equipment list.569

1991–1992 Administrative Reform Resolution.

Almost two decades later, during the 102nd Congress 

(1991–1992), allegations of mismanagement and other 

improprieties led House Speaker Tom Foley and House 

Minority Leader Bob Michel on March 25, 1992, to appoint 

a 16-member task force to look into the internal problems 

of the House and to development a management reform 

proposal for the House. One of the lead members of the 

task force was Committee Chairman Charles Rose of 

North Carolina. For two weeks, the task force met daily to 

discuss management reform options. Early on, the major 

disagreements between the majority and minority parties 

centered around the degree to which the majority would 

need the concurrence of the minority in overseeing House 

management operations under any future reorganization. 

Ultimately, in order to comply with the deadline set by 

the Speaker, the Democratic members of the task force 

recommended a proposal which became H.Res. 423, and 

the Republican task force members endorsed a proposal 

encompassing both administrative reorganization proposals as well as a number of additional changes in House and 

committee legislative and oversight procedures.570

On April 7, the Rules Committee agreed to allow only 

one amendment to H.Res. 423, which would be off ered by 

the Minority Leader, Bob Michel of Illinois. On April 9, 

1992, attempts were made to delay action on H.Res. 423. 

Two resolutions on the privilege of the House were off ered, 

and under House Rules given priority over eff orts to turn 

attention to H.Res. 423. First, the House agreed to require 

an explanation from the chairman and vice chairman of the 

Committee on House Administration Task Force on the 

House Post Offi ce on allegations of disruptions in the Task 

Force’s investigation. Next, the House agreed to a motion to 

table a resolution to require an investigation into published 

reports of illegal hiring practices in the House. After these 

resolutions were acted upon, the House agreed to H.Res. 423, 

after rejecting the Michel substitute.571

H.Res. 423 established the position of Director of NonLegislative Services, to be appointed by the Speaker on the 

joint recommendation of both party leaders; created the positions of Inspector General and General Counsel; and transferred certain functions from the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, 

and Doorkeeper to the new Director. Th e Committee on 

House Administration was given authority to determine what 

additional duties could be transferred to the Director, and to 

establish an oversight subcommittee composed of equal numbers of Members from both parties to review administrative 

services of the House.572

1995 Administrative Changes. Beginning in 1995, the 

Committee adopted a management philosophy which placed 

greater emphasis on setting policy and exercising oversight, 

with policy implementation delegated to the offi cers. Th is 

eff ort, begun in the months following the 1994 election, 

led to a sweeping reorganization of the management of the 

House. Under the new administrative structure: (1) the Offi ce 

of the Doorkeeper was eliminated and its primary functions 

transferred to the Sergeant at Arms; (2) a new office, the 

Chief Administrative Offi cer, was created for the day-to-day 

management of House operations, assuming duties held previously by the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services; (3) some House operations were privatized, such as the 

Beauty Shop, Barber Shop, postal operations, and shoeshine 

service; and (4) a standardized process was put into place to 

enforce open and fair procurement and bidding by ensuring 

the most competitive off ers won the House’s business.573

Th e Clerk of the House and the Committee agreed to 

reorganize certain information functions within the Clerk’s 

Office. A new unit, the Legislative Resource Center, was 

established, combining the Offi ce of Historian, House Document Room, House Library, and Offi ce of Registration and 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 219

Records, “to make the living history of the House easily 

accessible and on-line for members, staff , and the public.”574

All House offi cers were required to report semiannually to 

the Committee on the fi nancial operations of their offi ces, 

the performance of statutory duties, and the development and 

implementation of new performance plans.575 Th e Committee 

acquired jurisdiction over franking and congressional mail 

regulations from the Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee, which was abolished.576

New regulations issued by the Committee banned informal Member groups from obtaining their own offi ce space in 

House offi ce buildings. Th e Committee required all activities 

of an informal group be held in the personal offi ce of a sponsoring Member, and all expenses to be paid from Members’ 

offi cial personnel and offi ce accounts.577

Th ese reforms by the Committee were intended to: (1) 

reduce the cost of maintaining necessary services for House 

offi ces; (2) ensure the equitable enforcement of regulations 

governing House accounts; (3) identify potential savings and 

streamline administration; and (4) provide for the transfer, 

consolidation, and restructuring that would increase effi -

ciency and accountability in House operations. 

Next, the Committee quickly adopted a plan that proposed 

a review and evaluation of the functions and administrative 

activities assigned to the Clerk, Chief Administrative Offi cer, and 

Sergeant at Arms; the transfer, consolidation, and restructuring 

of House operations, to increase effi ciency and accountability; 

and a regular, on-going House audit procedure.578

Following these actions, the Committee conducted an 

exhaustive survey of public laws applicable to the Committee, and House offi cers and their administrative functions. 

Th is eff ort culminated in the August 1996 enactment of the 

House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, which clarifi ed, changed, or repealed more 

than 250 ambiguous or unnecessary statutes.579

Other changes in administrative policies in 1995 that 

aff ected House services and Members’ allowances resulted 

from an in-depth examination by the Committee on House 

Administration, House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Legislative Branch, and the Chief Administrative Offi cer 

(CAO). In June 1995, the Committee acted to:

• terminate the House Folding Room, which prepared 

printed Member mailings for delivery by the U.S. 

Postal Service (eff ective August 31, 1995, the Committee required mailing services to be handled in Member 

offi ces or by private sources); 

• terminate subsidies for the House Recording and Photography Studies, requiring Members to pay expenses 

from their offi ce allowances;

• downsize personnel and budgets of two support offi ces 

in votes held on June 14, 1995, by reducing the House 

Recording Studio staff to 16 from 34, and its budget by 

$1.2 million, and the House Photography Studio staff 

to six from 14, and its budget by $325,000;

• support an action by the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, to achieve 

savings by reducing printed material, including a limit 

on printing of the Congressional Record and a requirement that Members’ copies of the U.S. Code published 

in paperback rather than embossed hardback; and

• support an action of the Subcommittee on Legislative 

Branch to deny funds for printing of U.S. Capitol calendars in the FY1996 legislative branch appropriations 

bill, and to deny funds for operations of the Flag Offi ce 

of the Offi ce of the Architect of the Capitol, transferring 

both operations to the privately funded U.S. Capitol 

Historical Society.580 

Regular Oversight and Implementation of Changes. 

Following the changes in 1995, the Committee has continued 

to provide oversight of House operations and offi cers, consulted 

on a wide variety of policies and decisions, and responded to 

organizational changes initiated by the House or its leadership. 

Th e Committee has held multiple oversight hearings, including 

one on April 28, 2010, during which the Clerk, House Sergeant 

at Arms (HSAA), Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO), and 

Inspector General all testifi ed. Th e Committee has overseen 

reorganizations in the HSAA, CAO, and Clerk’s offi ces. For 

example, in the 111th Congress, the Committee approved a 

HSAA Senior Management Expansion/Reorganization Plan 

in order for the HSAA to better manage emergency evacuation 
220 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

planning and operations. It also monitored the merger of the 

Offi ce of Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Operations 

(OEPPO) in the HSAA office as the Office of Emergency 

Management. Th e functions of OEPPO, which was established 

by P.L. 107-117, were offi cially transferred to the HSAA by P.L. 

112-74. Th e Committee has also authorized reorganizations of 

the CAO leadership team in July 2006,581 as well as a reorganization and elimination of some CAO business units in 2011.582

Th e Committee has overseen the reorganization of historical, research, and preservation eff orts. House Rule II, 

originally adopted during the 101st Congress, provides for 

the establishment of an Offi ce of the Historian, although the 

position was vacant for many years. Although some historical functions after 1995 were performed by the Legislative 

Resource Center, in a business meeting on June 26, 2002, 

the Committee on House Administration passed a committee resolution approving the proposal for the offi ce as a new 

division within the Clerk’s offi ce for history and preservation.583 Under the Committee’s oversight, the Offi ce of History and Preservation (OHP) completed the House publications, Women in Congress, 1917–2006, and Black Americans 

in Congress, 1870–2006, both authorized by the House in 

2001. Two additional publications, including a new edition 

of Hispanic Americans in Congress, and a new publication to be 

entitled Asian and Pacifi c Islander-Americans in Congress are 

also in progress. Dr. Robert V. Remini was appointed Historian by Speaker Hastert in 2005, and in the 111th Congress, 

amid concern about possible competition and duplicative 

functions, the relationship between OHP and the Historian’s 

offi ce received renewed attention. Following Dr. Remini’s 

retirement, Speaker Pelosi named Dr. Matthew Wasniewski 

Historian on October 20, 2010. According to its fi rst semiannual activities report, “on May 31, 2011, the Committee 

approved the creation of a new division within the Offi ce of 

the Clerk titled Offi ce of the Historian Staff (OHS). Th is 

new division, which became eff ective June 1, 2011, includes 

the historical research staff from both the Offi ce of Art and 

Archives (OAA) and the Offi ce of the Historian, thus eliminating duplicative positions.”584

Ongoing Focus on Financial Audits

In passing legislation that became the Chief Financial Offi -

cers Act of 1990585 and the Government Management Reform 

Act of 1994,586 the House demanded executive branch agency 

accountability for effi cient and cost-eff ective management. 

Th is was to be achieved through comprehensive fi nancial 

statements, subject to scrutiny by an independent auditor. In 

1995, the House, with the Committee’s support and direction, took the bold step of applying this standard to itself. 

Section 107 of H. Res. 6, gave the House Inspector General 

(IG) a broad mandate to conduct a comprehensive audit of 

House operations, and to contract with independent auditing 

fi rms to accomplish the task.587 Th e information, fi ndings, 

and recommendations that followed provided a sweeping 

blueprint for management improvement that transformed the 

House from a patchwork of administrative irregularities and 

management ineffi ciencies to a professionally run institution, 

regularly exposed to outside scrutiny.

Th e change was not an easy one. First, the groundwork 

needed to be laid: while the fi rst House IG had been named 

in November 1993, his responsibilities were not clear, and 

with a staff of only three, the offi ce’s capability was limited. 

On January 11, 1995, the IG presented a proposal to the 

Committee on House Administration for authority to fi ll 18 

permanent positions and to enter into contractual agreements 

with independent accounting fi rms, subject to the availability 

of funds and approval of the Chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee. Th e IG’s request was approved 

shortly thereafter.588 

Within fi ve weeks, the fi rm of PriceWaterhouse LLP was 

selected competitively to carry out a comprehensive audit of 

the fi nancial records and administrative operations of the 

entire House (as of the end of 1994). By mid-February, PriceWaterhouse was at work. For fi ve months, as many as 125 

Price Waterhouse professionals, supplemented by IG staff , 

poured over all aspects of House administrative operations. 

On July 18, 1995, the auditors reported to the Committee 

on House Administration. Th e picture they presented was 

alarming. Defi ciencies were found in virtually all aspects 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 221

of administrative operations, with auditors detailing systematic defi ciencies that contributed to ineffi ciency, waste, 

and poor internal controls. Th e Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House concurred in the fi ndings and 

recommendations of auditors. Leadership of both parties also 

stressed their support for Price Waterhouse’s recommendation 

that the “paper-intensive” and “archaic” House accounting 

system be replaced with a modern accounting system.589

Under continuous monitoring by the Committee on 

House Administration and expanded investment in costeff ective information management tools, progress continued. 

On September 24, 1999, the Committee Chairman, William Th omas of California, announced achievement of a 

notable goal: the Price Waterhouse audit “found signifi cant 

improvements in House accounts record keeping, and the 

company pronounced the new fi nancial management practices instituted under the Committee’s oversight in keeping 

with standard accounting practices.”590

Th e Committee has continued to oversee the fi nancial 

operations of the House, particularly through the contracting 

of annual outside audits and reviewing the Inspector General’s audit plans and reports, investigating any irregularities 

uncovered, and monitoring suggested improvements. In the 

110th Congress, the Committee directed the expansion of the 

Inspector General’s work to include management advisory 

services. Th e Committee’s activity report says: “Th ese services 

have assisted the Committee tremendously in supervising 

many of the activities of the Offi cers, from development of a 

new House accounting system to securing the information 

systems of the Sergeant at Arms to ‘greening’ the Capitol,” 

and provides “expertise that assists in reconciling confl icting 

views regarding the appropriate course of action in House 

management.”591

Th e Inspector General’s duties were amended with the 

adoption of the Rules of the House for the 111th Congress. 

Th e section-by-section analysis of the Rule explains that the 

change was made at the recommendation of leadership of the 

Committee on House Administration “to clarify the nontraditional audit work that the Inspector General does in the 

areas of business process improvements, services to enhance 

the effi ciency of House support operations, and risk management assessments. Th e change also will allow the Inspector 

General to implement guidance and standards published in 

the Government Accountability Offi ce’s Government Auditing Standards.”592

Transparency and Technology Computerization

Introduction

Since 1947, the Committee on House Administration 

has been responsible for overseeing the introduction and 

integration of several generations of information technology into the House, from the allocation of mechanical 

typewriters in the post World War II era, to the issuance 

of a BlackBerry® to every Member at the beginning of the 

21st century. As this evolution has unfolded, the Committee role has progressed from: (1) allocating allowances 

for mechanical machinery such as typewriters, addressing 

machines, and dictation equipment; (2) to introduced 

mainframe computers and, later, personal computers in 

Congress, and (3) then to keeping pace with the rapid 

development of the Internet as a mass media, as well as a 

potential tool for ensuring the continuity of government 

in the event of an emergency.

1947–1968 - Wane of the Mechanical Age

Pursuant to the mandate for creating the Committee, to 

oversee the operations of the House, at the beginning of 

the 83rd Congress in 1953, the Committee conducted an 

inventory of mechanical offi ce equipment and found the 

House had over 1,000 items representing more than 100 

diff erent types of equipment. Up until this point, there had 

been essentially no limitations on the types or amount of 

offi ce equipment that could be purchased by Member offi ces 

or other House entities. Prompted by the results of the survey, the Committee changed regulations regarding offi ce 

equipment used in Members’ offi ces, limiting purchases to 

the fi ve following general categories: addressing machines, 

automatic typewriters, electric typewriters, dictating and 

transcribing machines, and duplication machines. By stan222 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

dardizing the type of equipment used in Members’ offi ces, 

the House was able to minimize the amount of surplus 

equipment leftover after the equipment from outgoing 

Members’ offi ces was reassigned to other offi ces.593 Also in 

1953, legislation reported by the Committee was enacted 

which set a limit of $2,500 on the electrical or mechanical 

purchases Members, offi cers, and committees might make 

at any one time.594

In 1955, the commencement of the 84th Congress signifi ed the creation of a Special Subcommittee on Offi ce Equipment for the fi rst time,595 and the rules governing the offi ce 

equipment purchase allowance were twice altered by Committee bills which became law. Among the rule changes was 

a requirement that members use a prescribed method for 

calculating the value of offi ce equipment, and authorization 

for the Clerk of the House to provide each Member offi ce 

with two electric typewriters without charging the Member’s 

equipment allowance.596

For the next several years, the Committee continued to 

make changes to upgrade and expand the types and allocations of offi ce equipment used in Member offi ces, as well 

as provide increases in telephone and telegraph allowances. 

Near the end of the 89th Congress (1965–1966), however, a 

legislative proposal was introduced for the fi rst time to bring 

computing capability to Congress. Against the backdrop 

of a larger debate over congressional reorganization, which 

would continue for several more years, Representative Robert 

T. McClory introduced H.R. 18428 on October 18, 1966. 

Th e bill would have created the fi rst congressional automatic 

data processing (ADP) center, to be housed at the Legislative Reference Service (the forerunner of the Congressional 

Research Service). According to Representative McClory’s 

related news release, the proposed ADP center was intended 

to focus on four applications: 

• the processing of federal budgetary data; 

• the collection, formation and maintenance of key information relating to each public bill before the Congress, 

including the legislative history of such bills; 

• the automated compilation of the Digest of Public General Bills, published by the Legislative Reference Service 

[now the Congressional Research Service]; and

• a general repository of vital government data. Th is could 

include current information on issues up for a vote, an 

index of Congressional documents and even the entire 

U.S. Code.597

H.R. 18428, which was referred to the Committee on 

House Administration, would have authorized $1.25 million toward the establishment of such a center for the fi scal 

years 1967 and 1968. Th e following Congress (90th Congress, 

1967–1968), nearly two dozen Members, including McClory, 

introduced separate bills supported the concept of an automated data processing (ADP) facility exclusive dedicated to 

serving Congress.598

1969–1992 - Congress Turns to Computers

By the 91st Congress (1969–1970), the automated data processing bills Members were introducing “refl ected a transition from a period devoted to the development of tentative 

proposals and a greater understanding of the nature of computer hardware and software to one featuring a resolve to 

create a tangible computer-centered support capability.”599

Early in the fi rst session, the House Democratic Caucus 

approved a resolution off ered by Representative John Brademas and seven House colleagues calling upon Democrats to 

support action in the Committee on House Administration 

to “improve the effi ciency of operations in the House of 

Representatives,” and urged “that these eff orts include, but 

not be limited to the use of computers and of a centralized 

processing system.”600

Subsequently, the Committee delegated oversight of its 

jurisdiction in computer development to its Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment. On 

July 1, 1969, the subcommittee established the Working Group 

on Automatic Data Processing for the House of Representatives, chaired by Representative Joseph D. Waggonner, Jr. Th e 

Working Group was charged with, among other responsibilities, identifying answers to three primary questions:

• What specifi c computer applications will be most useful 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 223

and suitable to Congress?

• How and by whom shall these be put into operation and 

maintained, and in what order?

• What arrangements should be made for the continuing general oversight of computer policy for the 

Congress, and for the coordination of future planning 

and development?601

Th e Working Group included staff from the Library of 

Congress, the General Accounting Offi ce, and the Clerk of 

the House.602 In October 1969 the Working Group issued 

its First Progress Report, which “consisted primarily of a 

review of prior and current suggestions and recommendations for the use of computers by the Congress and of 

possible approaches toward providing for the design and 

establishment of the system of data fl ow and related data 

management and retrieval capability that would be needed 

to make the system operational.”603

As part of its proposal for the second phase of the study, 

the report made two suggestions that continue to shape 

House information technology operations today. Th e fi rst 

was to adopt the operating assumption that while information 

obtained from the executive branch and the private sector 

was useful, “that Congress needs more information specially 

tailored for its own use. It needs to have information available 

that has been collected, structured, processed, and maintained in a more suitable form.” Th e second suggestion was 

the ultimate need to hire “highly qualifi ed individuals” as 

permanent staff to design, develop, implement, and operate 

information resources for the House of Representatives.604

During the fi rst session of the 91st Congress, the Subcommittee held 11 diff erent hearings on the activities being undertaken by the Working Group.605

Th e following February, the Work Group presented to 

the Subcommittee a special report which contained “detailed 

information relative to the initial plans and research for the 

development of an automated addressing and mailing system 

for House.”606

In October, 1970 the Working Group’s Second Progress 

Report was presented to the Subcommittee. Th e objectives of 

the report were as follows: 

• to establish, under master planning concepts, a recommended approach for the development of a unified, 

compatible system geared to serving the Congress but 

recognizing the requirement for compatibility and standardization with executive branch systems;

• to provide at the earliest date possible for the establishment of a time-phased schedule for, and the implementation of, those services which will provide an improvement over existing informational arrangements and 

which will be feasible for early application, recognizing 

the relationships to master planning concepts;

• to use, to the extent possible, the information already 

developed and established in computer supported executive branch information systems and/or to develop methods of accessing such data for Members of Congress;

• to establish a plan which will provide a capability to 

analyze, summarize, select, and process information, 

using a systems approach, encompassing cost/benefi t 

and other analytical techniques, to provide a means of 

selectively studying proposed legislative or executive 

branch actions and estimate possible results of such 

actions on a national, state, or possibly a congressional 

district level;

• to develop a plan for the coordination of all congressional computer support activities for the House of Representatives, thus avoiding unnecessary duplication and 

wasteful eff orts in providing computer support;

• to provide an open-ended design for the computer based 

system so that in terms of a total system concept segments may be added to the system without performing 

a complete or major systems redesign; and

• to provide for the necessary interfacing of the computer 

based system with all organizations making use of and 

providing input to the system, and to serve as a focal 

point for the establishment of computer based informational requirements for the House of Representatives in 

relation to planned major computer based eff orts to the 

executive branch.607

Th is report included the results of interviews and a survey of the staff of 284 member, committee and House offi cer 

offi ces, and 105 Members of the House, as well as information 

drawn from meetings with “executive agencies, state legislative 

and executive offi cials, and many private organizations that 
224 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

provide information support for the House.” Simultaneously, 

the “Special Subcommittee and the Working Group held over 

100 formal meetings and reviewed extensive documentation 

in the evaluation of the experience and capabilities of 65 companies for potential use in developing long-range plans and in 

the subsequent implementation of new services.” Additionally, 

the “Committee on House Administration awarded $450,000 

in contracts to eight companies” for a continuing study of the 

information and analysis needs of Congress, and the development of systems designed to meet these needs.608

Based on analysis of this research, the Working Group 

drew several “general conclusions” regarding the information 

needs and services of the House. Th ese included:

 First. Th e need for evaluative and interpretive information is very intensely felt. Information covering national 

issues and possible alternative solutions was held out as 

the most pressing area in need of attention. Examples of 

expressed needs follow:

• impact of proposed legislation on existing Federal law 

and programs, and the economy in general;

• impact of proposing legislation on Congressional districts;

• impact of existing Federal programs on each district;

• information for evaluation of Federal programs;

• information on the availability of alternative information 

sources and the expansion of these to meet Members’ 

and committees’ needs;

• expansion of independent analysis capabilities;

• identifi cation of knowledgeable and responsible sources 

of information with up-to-date names, addresses, and 

telephone numbers; and

• Supreme Court decisions relevant to pending legislation.

 Second. Th e need for procedural information was less 

intensely felt but was given the highest priority for early 

implementation. Th is type of information is susceptible 

of conversion to automatic handling more easily than is 

the broader based information on national issues involving the evaluative and interpretive services.

• an information system to maintain current, reliable, 

complete and accessible information about the status 

and content of each item of legislation before the House 

and in House committees; and to provide more expeditious access to legislative histories. Summaries of the 

status and groupings of measures by subject must be 

provided;

• status of legislation aff ecting the congressional district; 

and

• information about Federal grants, projects, loans and 

contracts for the congressional district—programs in 

existence, availability of funds, and status of individual 

applications by constituents.

 Th ird. Th e need for the actual content of documents is 

far less than for evaluative, interpretive and procedural 

information—Congressmen and key staff are unable, in 

the available time, to read all the actual documents that 

are provided to them. On the other hand, the committees, the offi ces of the House, the Legislative Reference 

Service, the General Accounting Offi ce, and the Government Printing Offi ce are concerned with content and 

historic information and maintain records and fi les on 

these matters.609

Crosscutting concerns included the potential eff ects of 

information systems on “organizational relationships within 

the legislative branch, the confi dentiality of some types of 

information, the accuracy and reliability of data, and the 

compatibility of legislative data systems with executive and 

private sector systems.”610

During the second session of the 91st Congress, the Subcommittee held seven additional hearings on the activities 

being undertaken by the Working Group.611 Other actions 

by the full Committee during the 91st Congress resulted in 

the House approving H. Res. 710, which provided funding 

from the contingent fund not in excess of $500,000 for the 

Committee to develop a computer system for the chamber. Th e Committee also reported a bill which consolidated 

all equipment purchases under one monetary allowance, 

improved accountability of equipment, facilitated the disposal 

of equipment, and permitted more fl exibility to Members and 

committees in obtaining equipment.612

House Information Systems (H.I.S.). Subsequently in 

April 1971, the Committee on House Administration “established the House Information Systems (HIS) Staff to provide 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 225

a professional base for computer activities. Responsibility for 

the design, development, and operation of all computer applications for the House [were] vested in this staff , acting under 

the guidance and leadership of the Committee on House 

Administration.” During the remainder of the 92nd Congress 

(1971–1972), “computer support to the House expanded 

rapidly to meet legislative and administrative needs of the 

House,” and the H.I.S. staff continued to grow.613 Under the 

direction of H.I.S., a number of major computer systems were 

developed, including (1) an electronic voting system, (2) a 

bill status system, (3) a committee calendar system, 4) a data 

analysis services (for legislative and investigative analytical 

tasks by committee’s staff ), and (5) “administrative support 

systems including the House payroll, Members’ allowance 

statements, offi ce equipment support, and support to the 

Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971.”614

During the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), the eff ort to establish strong computer support for the House continued to grow 

with the implementation of the electronic voting system in 

January 1973 and the bill status system a month later, expansion of committee calendar system, and specialized data analysis projects for particular committees. H.I.S. also (1) continued 

production support for a number of systems including the 

House payroll, Members’ allowance, House restaurant payroll, 

and offi ce equipment purchases; (2) developed a carpool system 

to meet the commuting needs of congressional staff ; and (3) 

began work on a “general fi nancial system,” which would allow 

many of the fi nancial functions of the Clerk of the House to be 

automated. H.I.S. acted on each of these initiatives only after 

it received guidance and direction from the Committee on 

House Administration, and “no commitments on new work 

[was] undertaken with specifi c authorization by the Committee.” Neither the Committee on House Administration nor 

H.I.S. staff , however, sought to “dictate user requirements or 

to design systems without user agreement, within the bounds 

of practicality and resource availability. Th e user—Member, 

Committee, or other House unit,” the Committee explained, 

was “expected to provide expertise on the substantive details 

of the information system that satisfi es a need expressed and 

defi ned by the user.”615

From 1971–1976, the activities of H.I.S. grew rapidly 

in size and scope. As House computer operations evolved 

from studies and demonstration projects to initiatives with 

signifi cant institutional impact, the level and responsibility 

of committee oversight also grew. H.I.S. maintained a direct 

reporting relationship with the full committee. At the beginning of the 94th Congress (1975–1976), the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Computers was established to address the “regular” 

and “frequent” need for “considered legislative judgments 

concerning computer applications.”616 Recognizing that the 

“information explosion,” was inundating Members with too 

much data, and showed “no signs of abating,” the Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee requested the Congressional Research Service 

to prepare a report on the “Library of Congress Information Resources and Services for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Th e committee print was designed to provide a 

“handy guide to the role the Library [was] playing in meeting 

the needs of Congress and the Nation in providing timely 

and useful information.”617 Th e Ad Hoc Subcommittee also 

published a committee print that provided Members with 

information about the range of on-line computer services 

and data bases available for their use. Th is latter print was 

prepared in conjunction with the issuance of Committee 

Order No. 23, which permitted Members of the House “to 

allocate a portion of the funds they receive for staff salaries 

for ‘computer services.’”618

At the beginning of 1976, the H.I.S. staff included 

“101 computer professionals—information and computer 

systems specialists, system factors specialists, analysts and 

programmers—and 27 operations personnel, in addition to 

[35] managerial and clerical staff .” By the end of November 

1976, the H.I.S. staff had grown from 163 to 210. In calendar 

year 1976, $6,626,000 in funding was provided in support 

of computer activities for the House.619

In 1977, at the beginning of the 95th Congress (1977–

1978), the Committee established the Policy Group on 

Information and Computers to oversee “the activities of 

[H.I.S.] and make recommendations to the full committee 

concerning information policy for the House of Representatives.”620 Also in 1977, the Subcommittee for Electrical 
226 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, which was responsible 

for matters relating to the provision and use of electrical 

and mechanical offi ce equipment in Member, Offi cer, and 

Committee offices, was renamed the Subcommittee on 

Offi ce Systems.621 While the Policy Group’s jurisdiction 

focused specifi cally on H.I.S. activities, the Subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction focused on the broader use of technology by 

Members and Committees. In 1983, for the 98th Congress 

(1983–1984), the Policy Group was eliminated and oversight responsibilities were folded into the regular committee/

subcommittee structure. 

Following the initial shockwaves created by the introduction of computers to the House of Representatives, both 

the administrative and technological infrastructure of the 

legislative body continued to develop and mature at a steady 

pace for the rest of the 1970s and 1980s. During the 94th Congress (1975–76), H.I.S. continued to expand the capabilities 

of House legislative, administrative, and Member systems. 

In 1975, a pilot of the Member Information Network (MIN) 

was initiated by H.I.S. in conjunction with the House Commission on Information and Facilities. With 23 offi ces participating, the MIN pilot was to test and evaluate the “benefi ts 

of a general retrieval network for Members.”622 Compared to 

contemporary networking capabilities and resources, the pilot 

project started modestly, providing access to the bill status 

database and a Library of Congress database. It prefi gured, 

however, the coming revolution of microcomputers in 1980s 

and Internet accessible computers in the 1990s. 

Also at this time, new features were added to the electronic voting system, such as the ability to retrieve historical 

vote information and the addition of more issue information 

related to specifi c votes. Th e bill status system, which served 

as the “principal legislative information system” at that time, 

was extended through the creation of the Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) in 1976. Among other 

features LEGIS brought both House and Senate resources 

together, and included new information such as the status 

of Presidential messages and communications, nominations, treaties, petitions, and memorials. Access to LEGIS 

was enabled through remote terminals located in Member, 

Committee, and other offi ces in an attempt to decentralize access. However, refl ecting both the largely centralized 

nature of House information resources and the still-novel 

nature of computing in the House, staff and Members could 

still submit requests for information by telephone to the bill 

status offi ce, where computer operators would run queries 

and return the information to the requestor. Also in 1976, the 

Committee Meeting Information System (COMIS) began 

as a pilot project. Refl ecting the ever growing workload and 

schedules of the Members, COMIS was created to schedule 

“committee meetings to diminish the frequency of schedule 

confl icts for Members, and provide a readily accessible database of information about committee meetings.”623

The 95th Congress (1977–78) brought a continued 

expansion of pilot projects and information services for both 

legislative and administrative functions. At the start of the 

Congress, 30 offi ces were participating in the MIN pilot, 

and by the end of the Congress more than 230 offi ces were 

participating.624 Beyond increased participation, however, 

were a substantial increase in new services and expansion of 

existing services. By this time MIN provided access to many 

diff erent types of information, including, but not limited 

to, legislative information, federal budget information, the 

Summary of Proceedings and Debates (SOPAD) system, the 

Library of Congress databases via SCORPIO, the Federal 

Assistance Programs Retrieval System (FAPRS) database, and 

the Justice Retrieval Inquiry System (JURIS), which included 

the United States Code.625

Other ongoing enhancements to the House computing capabilities included a calendar preparation system, a 

precedents preparation system, a federal elections system 

which enabled the Clerk to process campaign contribution 

and expenditure data, online processing of payroll, automated management of the Member allowance system, and 

the congressional carpool system.626 Refl ecting the centralized 

mainframe nature of House computing at that time, by the 

end of 1978 House computing capacity had grown to three 

times its 1977 capacity.627
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 227

To assist House Members and committees in selecting 

computer services and terminals most suitable for their particular needs, the Policy Group on Information and Computers in 1977 published two committee prints designed to 

make the transition to computers easier. Th ese included a 

guidebook that provided “a fundamental knowledge of basic 

computer technology and capabilities,” a directory “of computer-based and information-oriented resources and services 

available through private sector corporations which [might] 

prove benefi cial in Capitol Hill legislative and administrative 

application areas.”628

Additionally, the Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development was formed in May 1977 to “coordinate 

the development of technology-supported information systems” for Congress, including effi cient use of computer installations. Th e group, which was composed of the one senior 

staff member and one alternate each from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Committee on House 

Administration, and the Congressional Research Service, 

was charged with ensuring “that unnecessary duplicate and 

counterproductive eff orts [were] avoided among the Senate 

, House, and Library of Congress computer activities,” and 

their “eff orts in subjects of joint interest [were] coordinated 

in a cost-eff ective manner.” Senator Claiborne Pell, chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 

and Representative Frank Th ompson, Jr., Chairman of the 

Committee on House Administration, emphasized in the 

forward of the group’s First Annual Report that the “benefi t 

to Congress which [was] being derived from the ad hoc joint 

eff ort in developing the Legislative Information and Status 

System (LEGIS) [was] an example of the success” Congress 

could expect to “accrue from the eff orts of the Policy Coordination Group.”629

Th e focus of the Policy Group on Information and Computers in the 96th Congress (1979–1980) was wide ranging. 

Among the H.I.S. projects given particular attention by the 

group were those relating to the 1980 budget, the Member 

orientation program, the network project, information and 

offi ce automation processing needs, the district offi ce communication project, and conversion of the House Electronic 

Voting System to modern computer equipment to improve 

the overall capabilities of the system. A considerable eff ort was 

also expended in eff orts to implement a policy whereby the 

Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) could be 

made available to the public, and serving as a liaison among 

various Legislative Branch entities, the Committee on House 

Administration, and the Executive Branch in the implementation of information policy and data processing development. 

Early in 1980, House committees started to reimburse 

H.I.S. for computer services in accordance with policy 

established by the policy group and the full Committee. Th e 

reimbursement policy was extended to House offi cers, joint 

committees, and support offi ces in October 1980 and Members in December 1980. Under the guidance of the policy 

group, H.I.S. tested and prepared to implement an Electronic 

Mail System (EMS) operation for the House, and worked to 

determine the feasibility of using a non-computer language 

system to communicate with a computer, which would be 

able to translate ordinary English into computer commands 

and queries. Th e Group approved two funding resolutions 

(H. Res. 129 and H. Res. 574) to cover the expenses the 

Committee on House Administration incurred in providing 

computer service to the House during the 96th Congress, 

and held 17 formal hearings in overseeing the funding and 

operations of H.I.S.630

Entering the 1980s, training, the development of e-mail 

systems, and the more direct use of technology to facilitate 

casework began to take center stage. While training had always 

been a signifi cant element in the H.I.S. mandate, both the 

quantity and variety of training classes continually increased 

as new technologies and applications were introduced and 

there was greater buy-in from Member and Committee offi ces 

and staff . On July 15, 1981, the H.I.S. Offi ce Management 

Demonstration and Training Center was opened “to provide 

a convenient facility to display computer technology and techniques in a simulated congressional environment.”631

Also in 1981, at the direction of the Policy Group on 

Information and Computers, H.I.S. tested and evaluated 
228 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

several electronic mail systems and conducted a pilot test 

that included 340 staff from 197 offices. Some executive 

branch agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and 

Commerce, and the Social Security Administration, were 

also included because of their ability to “provide House staff 

the necessary information to process constituent casework.”632

Following the pilot study the Policy Group and the Committee proposed that H.I.S. develop and operate an in-house electronic mail system that would be tailored to House users.633

Development of such a system was completed by the end of 

1982 and deployed for all House users in early 1983. Also 

at this time, H.I.S. completed development of a correspondence management system (CMS), that the Committee had 

directed H.I.S. to develop in 1980.634 Early in 1981, the policy 

group received two days of testimony from a technical advisory panel on the feasibility of a H.I.S. computer communications network, and recommend that the full committee 

accept a data processing agreement between H.I.S. and the 

Congressional Budget Offi ce.635

As both the number and sophistication of applications 

continued to increase, so did interest in microcomputers 

and recognition of a future convergence between telecommunications and computing. In 1983, the full committee 

established the Task Force on Telephone Confi guration, to 

be administered by the Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems. 

Based on recommendations provided by the Task Force, 

the Subcommittee began work to coordinate and optimize 

House telephone service, billing, long distance service, and 

the use of the House Cable Network for telecommunications functions.636

During the fi rst session of the 98th Congress (1983), a 

microcomputer support area established in the H.I.S. Offi ce 

Management Demonstration and Training Center made “just 

over 200 contacts with Members and committee offi ces concerning information and training on computers.” In 1984, 

“there were approximately 1150 contacts made, involving 

equipment and software demonstrations and selections.” Similarly, H.I.S. began to fi eld an increasing number of inquiries 

from Member and Committee offi ces about establishing local 

area networks (LANs) with their microcomputers. Along 

with the rollout of the H.I.S.-developed CMS system and the 

H.I.S. e-mail service, H.I.S. also implemented TYMNET and 

UNINET ACCESS, which enabled district offi ces to more 

easily connect to the House Cable Network and the Member Information Network (MIN).637 Other new or enhanced 

H.I.S. services in the 98th Congress included a Legal Retrieval 

System to aid congressional offi ces in legislative research, drafting, and investigations; an updated U.S. Code data base; an 

on-line automated system for Reports Due to Congress; and 

an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), which was designed 

to provide electrical current to mainframes in the event of a 

power failure. Installation of UPS was completed during the 

following Congress.638

Reflecting a continuing shift away from mainframe 

applications toward PC-based applications, H.I.S. introduced MICROMIN in October 1986, near the end of the 

99th Congress (1985–1986). MICROMIN was designed to 

run on a single PC or on a small PC network, such as those 

beginning to be used in Member offi ces. MICROMIN was 

described as providing: 

a full range of integrated information management 

and offi ce automation functions that include correspondence management, Member scheduling, 

casework tracking, and direct communications 

with the large data bases on the Member Information Network (MIN) that are available via HIS’s 

mainframe computers.639

Th e 99th Congress also saw the continued automation of 

legislative information, designed, in part, to “enhance legal 

research capabilities for House Staff .”640 Among these changes 

was the fi nal testing of an online version of the full text of 

the Congressional Record, which became operational at the 

beginning of the 100th Congress. H.I.S. also added several 

legislative functions to the Legislative Information Management System (LIM), which made House and Senate Floor 

activity “available to on-line users on a realtime basis.” Th ese 

functions included Senate Action Reporting, Committee 

Action Reporting, Floor Action Reporting, Executive Action 

Reporting, Reports Due to Congress, House Calendar, House 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 229

Journal, Bill Briefs, and the Legislative Activity Guide which 

provided Members with a record of all of their individual 

votes. Installation of the Public Data Network (PDN) allowed 

district offi ce users for the fi rst time to connect to the H.I.S. 

mainframe in Washington.641

Th e 100th Congress (1987–1988) brought further signs 

of the growing importance of technology to the House. In 

addition to its responsibilities for overseeing the Approved 

List of Offi ce Equipment and H.I.S., the Subcommittee 

on Offi ce Systems was actively involved in the replacement 

of the House phone system in favor of an electronic private 

branch exchange (PBX) telephone system. Th e new telephone system provided enhanced functionality and security 

while also saving money.642 In 1987, the Subcommittee also 

adopted new policies designed to streamline the purchase 

of upgraded versions of approved software packages and in 

1988, in recognition of security concerns related to cellular 

phones, it opted to include proactively a notice about “the 

lack of security of these conversations” with each approval 

of a purchase request.643

Th roughout the 100th Congress the Subcommittee on 

Offi ce Systems maintained a close relationship with H.I.S., 

and held an oversight hearing on H.I.S. in April of 1987 

to review the administration and operation of information 

management, data processing, and telecommunications in 

the House. At the hearing, “HIS personnel presented a brief 

historical overview of the services currently being provided, 

an explanation of the organization of HIS with a presentation 

by each divisional manager on the activities of each division, 

and a planning projection for the future.” A year later, the 

Committee on House Administration published a comprehensive guide to H.I.S. computer and information services 

available to Members of House.644

As the activities and accomplishments of H.I.S. continued to grow, the integration of computing into House activities could be seen in the sharp increase in the number of PCs 

being used by Member and Committee offi ces, and a growing 

demand for both customized applications and Apple Macintosh computer support. In one resource-intensive example, 

the Iran-Contra Investigation Committee had H.I.S. coordinate data processing and printing services, including the 

development of databases to help index and analyze more 

than 250,000 subpoenaed documents.645

In addition, H.I.S. continued its support of LEGIS, 

designed and developed a Correspondence Management 

System for the Apple Macintosh; designed and installed a 

class scheduling system for the Page School, a comprehensive 

patient management system for the Offi ce of the Attending 

Physician, and a scheduling system for the Press Gallery; 

provided training for nearly 3,000 employees; responded 

to nearly 12,000 troubleshooting requests; and developed a 

new Committee Calendar System for deployment during the 

101st Congress.646

H.I.S., in forward looking effort to develop a “new 

technological foundation for the House,” also launched four 

major initiatives in the 101st Congress (1989–1990) that were 

designed “to provide the House superior information technology capabilities for years to come.” Th ese included:

• CASE (Computer-Aided Software Engineering). A 

methodology adopted “both as a basis for [HIS] strategic planning and for the design of individual application 

systems” that could provide the “rigor and discipline to 

insure that resources [were] directed effi ciently toward 

needs in a prioritized and cost-eff ective manner.”

• Client/Server Computing. A client/server model adopted 

by H.I.S. “as its architecture of choice for new systems 

development.” Th is arrangement made it possible for 

“PCs and Macintoshes” to use the H.I.S. central facilities (and other computers as well) as extensions of their 

own capabilities,” and for “information throughout 

the network” to be instantly available in an integrated 

fashion.”

• Communications Networking. A Wide Area Network 

designed and implemented by H.I.S. to “provide reliable, high-speed, and cost eff ective access for District 

Offi ces” that it was felt would “largely eliminate distance 

and geography as a factor in distributing workload in 

Members offi ces.”

• X.400 Messaging. An message handling system adopted 

by H.I.S. “for all of its system development work.” Adoption of X.400 “provided a compatible means to move 

information from any person, computer or system to any 
230 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

other person, computer or system.” X.400 “together with 

the Client/Server architecture and the communications 

network that” L.I.S. had built, it was felt would “set the 

stage for ‘Total Creativity’ within the House. Members 

and staff ers in the future [would] each have the information and processing function they [needed] directly at 

their fi ngertips.”647

Th e 101st Congress also brought further progress in the 

eff ort to develop the “new technological foundation for the 

House, resulting in expanded usage of H.I.S. Systems and 

services.”648 By 1989, many of the most heavily used House 

IT systems continued to run on technology set up in the early 

1970s when H.I.S. was fi rst created. Consequently, there was 

a strong need to rebuild and update House IT by moving 

away from an environment dominated by mainframes and 

toward a client-server computing model running on wide and 

local area networks using PCs. Toward this goal, the Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems approved a proposal to develop a 

wide area data communications network that would enable 

Members to access all available House information resources 

from both their Washington and district offi ces. Th e network 

became available in 1991.649 Similarly, H.I.S. began to replace 

the centrally-managed Member Information Network with 

the client-server based Integrated System and Information 

Service (ISIS). By moving away from a mainframe model 

focused on custom made software that could be cumbersome 

to update, ISIS was based on an “open systems” design that 

utilized common standards and allowed “vendor-supplied 

offi ce automation systems to incorporate its information and 

functionality.”650 Th is would ultimately enable users to select 

software packages based on their needs, rather than try to fi t 

their needs around a limited set of options. 

Reflecting both an evolving sophistication of users’ 

needs and the capabilities of technology, the 102nd Congress 

(1991–1992) “witnessed unusual growth in House automation, information, and communication.”651 One such area 

of growth was the implementation of a wide area network, 

begun in the previous Congress, that connected over 100 

Washington offi ces to their district offi ces. Another area of 

development was the implementation of a House-wide e-mail 

system intended to interconnect the existing collection of 

e-mail systems, and enable them to exchange mail with users 

outside the House computing environment, including the 

Senate and other federal agencies. Th e House also contributed 

to eff orts to develop CapNet, a high speed network designed 

to connect all legislative branch organizations together.652

Another major advance was the creation of the fi rst compact disc (CD-ROM) version of the U.S. Code in 1992 by 

H.I.S. In printed form, the U.S. Code spanned more than 

30 hardbound volumes, while in digital form it was put on a 

single compact disc.653 Other advances included the upgrade 

and expansion of many back offi ce applications including 

maintenance of the National Mailing System, development 

of an “Electronic Fund Transfer capability for the Member 

Payroll System,” development and installation of “an identifi cation and security system,” development of “specifi cations 

for an ID-Badging and Access Control system for the House 

and other Capitol Hill entities,” increased staffing of the 

central computing facility to provide 24/7 operations support, and development of the ability to electronically transfer 

some House publications to the Government Printing Offi ce 

(GPO) for printing.654

1993–2008 - Congress Goes Online

Th e 103rd Congress (1993–1994) marked an important turning point for the House of Representatives. Representative 

Charles G. Rose, chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration, “the mastermind behind the infl ux of new 

technology . . . himself a high-tech junkie . . . took special 

interest” in H.I.S. As chairman, Rose “was able to personally oversee the development and use of new technologies 

within the House, and his own experience helped chart the 

course.”655

Following several years of transition from a mainframe 

to a desktop computing environment, the House began to 

embrace the convergence of computers and telecommunications, in the form of the Internet. Representative of this historic transition, “the House Calendar became the fi rst document transferred directly from the H.I.S. mainframe (or any 

government computer) to the Government Printing Offi ce 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 231

(GPO) electronically.”657 In another acknowledgment of the 

issues the House would need to address, at a full committee meeting held March 9, 1994, the Committee on House 

Administration appointed the Task Force on the Internet, 

chaired by Representative Th omas Manton. Th e Task Force 

would later develop a report, although it does not appear to 

have been publicly printed.658

The Subcommittee on Office Systems continued its 

oversight of House Information Systems (H.I.S.). In addition to negotiating price changes with vendors and approving additions and exceptions to the House Approved List of 

Equipment and Services, the Subcommittee approved the 

use of pager services for Member and committee staff ; lifted 

the rules limiting the number of television sets allowed in 

Members and committee offi ces; and continued oversight of 

development of CapNet.659

H.I.S. also implemented a number of initiatives that 

contributed to the transformation of the House computing environment. Most signifi cantly was providing Internet access to Members and enabling public access to House 

information via the Internet. As part of this eff ort H.I.S. set 

up a number of basic Internet services to enable the access 

and transfer of information and fi les, including Telnet, File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP), UseNet, Gopher, and Wide Area 

Information Server (WAIS). During this time, prior to the 

advent of graphic Internet browsers, Gopher was one of the 

most widely used methods of sharing information via the 

Internet. Th e WAIS server provided “public access to the full 

text of House bills and resolutions.”660 In addition, H.I.S. 

implemented a House-wide electronic mail (e-mail) capability that connected the various House e-mail systems and 

supported mail exchange with external users. Public e-mail 

boxes were also established allowing constituents to send 

messages to Representatives.661 Even at this early stage, there 

was an awareness of potential security concerns regarding the 

Internet, and H.I.S. established “a secure fi rewall between the 

Internet and House networks.”662

Nearly a decade before concerns about homeland security 

and continuity of operations would take on renewed meaning, 

H.I.S. was working to upgrade its own disaster recovery capabilities. Up until this time, the House manually transported 

backup tapes of critical fi les to an off -site vault in a House offi ce 

building. Working with the Library of Congress, the House 

“installed an electronic robotic tape subsystem in the Library’s 

Computer Center.”663 H.I.S. also conducted several disaster 

recovery tests at hotsites located away from Capitol Hill.664 In 

later October 1993, the Committee on House Administration 

held an oversight hearing on H.I.S. to keep committee members abreast of ever expanding work of the service.665

Still, prior to 1995, the House “was almost exclusively 

a ‘paper-based’ institution. While computers and electronic 

document applications were used, they were largely limited 

to stand-alone computers or text-only ‘dummy terminals’ not 

connected to any House-wide network and the mass distribution of documents was possible only through hard-copy 

means.” At the time, only 53 “House members had Internet 

access and there were virtually no personal offi ce or committee Web sites. Electronic connections between members’ 

Capitol Hill and district offi ces were limited, with fewer than 

thirty legislators using high-speed network connections. 

Finally, the House supported nine disparate and eff ectively 

uninteroperable e-mail systems.”666 

Th e opening of the 104th Congress (1995–1996), marked 

a historic shift in majority control of both houses of Congress from the Democrats to the Republicans, and signifi cant 

changes that further propelled the House in the information age. Under the direction of Committee Chairman Bill 

Th omas and Speaker Newt Gingrich, the House “began an 

ambitious program to upgrade all of its computer systems,” 

and “adopted a set of Internet email standards ensuring full 

interoperability.” By the end of the second session, “222 

members had high-speed network connections between their 

Washington, D.C. and district offi ces, and more than 222 

member offi ces and 27 full committees had established Web 

sites on the House Web server.”667

As part of a larger reform agenda that changed the Committee’s focus the name of the Committee on House Administration changed to the Committee on House Oversight. 
232 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

For the Committee this involved the delegation of many 

of its administrative responsibilities to the House Offi cers. 

As part of this shift, House Information Systems was combined with the Offi ce of Telecommunications. Th e combined 

unit was renamed House Information Resources (HIR) and 

placed under the auspices of the Chief Administrative Offi cer 

(CAO). Perhaps most notably though, THOMAS, a new 

Library of Congress legislative information retrieval system 

went online on January 4, 1995.668 THOMAS, which was 

named in honor of Thomas Jefferson, provide the public 

a broad range of information about Congress heretofore 

unavailable on the Internet.

In February 1995, the Committee established a 

Computer Information and Services Working Group to 

undertake a comprehensive study of all House computers, 

networks, and user requirements with the goal of developing an implementation plan that was popularly referred 

to as the “CyberCongress” project. Implementation of the 

CyberCongress would increase staff effi ciency through 

“paperless administrative functions,” “increased the speed 

of administrative transactions, and reduce overall central administrative costs.” Th e functions involved were 

to “include payroll administration, travel vouchers, and 

ordering offi ce supplies. By having a common hardware 

platform in each offi ce, HIR can provide the easiest-to-use 

software at the lowest cost for the House.”669

On May 10, 1995, the Committee approved a signifi -

cant change in the procedures for purchasing computer 

and office equipment, including software and services. 

Previously the Committee maintained an approved list of 

specifi c products from specifi c vendors, exceptions to which 

required the Chairman’s approval. Also software could 

only be purchased through the Offi ce Supply Store. Th e 

new procedures, which went into eff ect September 1, 1995, 

directed the House chief Executive Offi ce (CAO) to develop 

minimum technical standards for equipment and maintain 

a list of preferred vendors. Th e CAO also negotiated bulk 

pricing discounts on “common equipment such as printers 

and copiers, and develop an offi cial process for tracking and 

resolving vendor complaints.” Offi ces were then allowed to 

purchase any hardware or software from any vendor that 

met the minimum standards.670

At a June 14, 1995 meeting, the Committee approved 

the concept of one element of the CyberCongress project, 

the “Offi ce 2000” initiative, which was intended to “develop 

standardized offi ce electronic communications, adopt a standardized groupware platform, and provide advanced database 

and communications management.”671 Also at this meeting, 

the Committee agreed to a resolution renaming House Information Systems to House Information Resources.672

The formal House Information Systems Program Plan

developed by the working group was adopted by the House 

Oversight Committee in November 1995. Th e plan called for 

a “robust, coherent, unifi ed multimedia network, with suffi cient 

software and modern compatible equipment, with which the 

U.S. House of Representatives may eff ectively function to best 

serve the American public, the Members of the House, and other 

government institutions.” Th e plan, which “became the blueprint for implementation of the major information technology 

initiatives during the 104th Congress.” called for:

• infrastructure upgrades of the House network;

• replacing outdated computer hardware and software 

with advanced desktop computers and fully integrated 

offi ce systems software capable of handling information 

in text, audio, and video formats;

• developing a comprehensive security program for the 

House of Representatives to ensure the integrity and 

authenticity of electronic information;

• improving support and training;

• developing an Internet presence on the World Wide Web 

for the House of Representatives, including public access 

to House documents and public e-mail from constituents to their Representatives;

• implementing new computer applications and technologies to support House operations; and

• collaboration among all legislative branch organizations to develop joint research capabilities to support 

Members and committees.673

Specifically, the Committee approved a decision to 

provide each Member offi ce one “standard” (a private line 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 233

or frame relay service up to 56kbps in speed) data network 

connection between Washington and a district offi ce, at no 

charge to the Members Representational Allowance (MRA). 

For Members who were then paying for such a data network 

connection, the average savings to their MRAs was $6,000.674

Also at this time, the Committee decided to provide each 

Member offi ce with “one Pentium-class IBM-Compatible 

desktop computer” in 1996.675

Th e Committee also approved regulations governing 

the content of Member and committee offi cial web sites. A 

July 31, 1996 Dear Colleague letter from Chairman Th omas 

summarized the regulations as follows:

Th e creation and operation of Members’ offi cial 

Web sites must be in support of the Members’ offi -

cial and representational duties to the district from 

which elected. Offi ce Web sites may not: include 

personal, political, or campaign information; 

include advertisements or endorsements for private 

individuals or entities; and directly link to Web sites 

created or operated by campaign or partisan political organizations. H.I.R. will display an exit notice 

stating that users are leaving the House of Representatives, prior to linking to a non-House Web site. 

Th is notice will include a disclaimer that neither 

the Member nor the House are responsible for the 

content of linked sites. For security purposes, all 

offi cial Web sites must be located on the HOUSE.

GOV host-domain. Member offi ces may choose 

between maintaining their sites in their offi ce or 

through the use of H.I.R. services.676

Following the dramatic technology changes introduced during the 104th Congress, the Committee continued its oversight and steady modernization of the House 

technology infrastructure. In the 105th Congress (1997–

1998), oversight focused on activities such as deployment 

of the House messaging system; implementation of the 

Legislative Branch Information Technology Exchange 

(LBITE) to facilitate the sharing of information technology plans among legislative branch agencies; Year 2000 

preparation and remediation; implementation of a data 

standard for information exchange within the legislative branch; development of a fax gateway pilot; and the 

issuance of regulations regarding the house.gov Internet 

domain.677 In the 106th Congress (1999–2000), oversight 

continued to focus on several of these issues, including 

overseeing, in conjunction with the Senate, the Legislative 

Branch Telecommunications group; overseeing implementation of House Rule XI 2(e)4 requiring committee 

documentation to be made available electronically, to 

maximum extent possible; overseeing continuing Year 

2000 preparation and remediation activities; and developing common data standards to be used through the legislative branch. Other activities included the implementation 

of a new legislative information system, the enhancement 

of House information security policies, ongoing eff orts to 

introduce and integrate new technologies and upgrades; 

and continued development of the means to disseminate 

information to the public electronically.678

During the 107th Congress (2001–2002), the Committee 

continued to address many of these same issues while continuing to support the development of the House IT infrastructure. 

Some of the activities approved by the Committee included the 

development of a virtual private network (VPN) pilot; enabling 

the capability to order offi ce supplies via the House intranet; 

updating minimum standards for hardware and software purchases; and upgrading the House Staff Human Resources/

Payroll System and the fi nancial management system.679

Response to September 11 Terrorist Attacks. Th e September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent anthrax 

incidents, also brought a renewed urgency to the security 

and continuity of congressional operations. Perhaps most 

notably, after the attacks, the Committee quickly purchased 

and issued a BlackBerry® to each Member of the House of 

Representatives, and provided training for using the devices. 

Th is focus on continuity and emergency preparedness continued throughout the rest of the 107th Congress with activities 

such as the creation of the Offi ce of Emergency Preparedness; 

improvements to the telecommunications systems; and continuing eff orts to back up House e-mail systems.680
234 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

At a May 1, 2002, hearing the Committee also considered the controversial idea of developing the capability to convene an electronic Congress (E-Congress) that 

would allow Members to serve the American people in 

the event it was not possible to meet in person in Washington, DC. Reiterating the technology theme, one witnesses participated via video conference from Prague. In 

addition to considering the technical feasibility of such 

a “virtual Congress,” hearing witnesses raised questions 

about potential negative implications for the deliberative process, historical precedent, House rules that do 

not allow remote voting, and constitutional requirements 

that Congress assemble (in person) at least once a year. 

Alternatives to an E-Congress, such as changing quorum 

rules, broadening the ability of Congress to convene itself 

in a location other than the Capitol, and expediting the 

process for fi lling Member vacancies were also discussed.681

A year after the terrorist attacks, the Committee held 

a hearing on “Security Updates Since September 11, 2001.” 

This session was intended to be a retrospective of the 

actions taken over the past year to improve the security and 

continuity practices of the House and a look forward at 

what actions still needed to be completed. While a signifi -

cant portion of the hearing focused on physical security, 

Chief Administrative Offi cer James M. Eagen III reported 

on a number of actions taken to improve communications 

and data availability in the event of an emergency. Some 

of these activities included, but were not limited to, the 

establishment of an off -site mail center; creation of an 

off -site computing center to provide redundancy and automatic “fail over” capability for data systems; preparation 

of a digital mail pilot program; increasing remote access 

capacity; integration of emergency notifi cation systems; 

an emphasis on mobile solutions; upgrading the voice mail 

and telephone exchange system; the distribution of Government Emergency Telecommunications Services (GETS) 

cards to Members; and diversifi cation of the data lines to 

remove single points of failure.682 While the fi rst half of 

the hearing was held in open session, due to the sensitivity 

of the topic, the Committee conducted the second half of 

the hearing in executive session. 

During the 108th–109th Congresses (2003–2006), the 

Committee continued its stewardship of House information technology resources through activities such as oversight of House Information Resources; updating minimum 

requirements; oversight of the Committee hearing room 

upgrade program; approval and oversight of the upgrade 

and/or replacement of administrative systems (i.e., payroll, 

fi nancial management, etc.); oversight of computer security 

measures; oversight and implementation of the disaster recovery program for House, Member, and Committee offi ces; and 

update the approved list of software and minimum equipment standards, to name a few.683

With the integration of the Internet and other information technologies evolving from the exceptional to the 

routine, the Committee began looking ahead at the next 

phase of technology adoption in the House. On September 

26, 2006, the Committee held a hearing entitled “Th e IT 

Assessment: A Ten-Year Vision for Information Technology 

in the House.” Th e hearing served as an opportunity both 

to review past achievements and practices and look ahead 

to future goals and challenges. The hearing focused on 

“several key business decisions called To-Be Visions, which 

the House [needed] to agree upon before implementing a 

strategic technology plan.”684

To this end, the hearing focused on the latest fi ndings of 

a multi-phase assessment commissioned by the Committee in 

August 2004. Th e assessment, conducted by Gartner Consulting and the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), 

identifi ed six factors that were “exerting pressure on the House 

to more quickly and thoroughly integrate technology.” Th ese 

forces included:

• a “budget crunch, which was placing pressure on the 

House to minimize costs;”

• future security crises in which technology will play a 

signifi cant role;”

• increased comfort of new Members with technology, 

since the businesses and State legislatures they are 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 235

coming from use technology signifi cantly diff erent 

from the House:”

• increasing demands by constituents and the press for 

information, which technology can help meet;”

• continuing integration of technology into society, which 

is placing pressure on all institutions for use technology 

more eff ectively;” and

• increasing demands of the legislative cycle which technology can help members and staff meet as eff ectively 

as they would like to.”685

The four factors representing the greatest hurdles to 

technology were identifi ed as:

1. “the lack of standard legislative document formats and 

policies make it diffi cult to implement technology to 

increase suffi ciency, enhance access, or reduce the cost 

of producing legislative documents;”

2. “the lack of House-wide technology coordination 

sometimes leads to confl icts, redundancies, and higher 

costs because offi ces often implement technology in a 

vacuum;”

3. “the fact that the House operates disparate systems 

throughout the institution, which prevents it from taking advantage of economies of scale, shared support 

services and enhanced capabilities provided by enterprise 

systems;” and

4. “the general lack of resources in House offi ces. Although 

technology has placed all kinds of demands on Members 

and staff , their resources aren’t keeping pace with the 

demands.”686

Th e assessment concluded with several specifi c recommendations for each of fi ve key business processes of the 

House, including the legislative process, member offi ce 

operations, institutional operational support, Member 

activities, and party organization. Taken together, the 

report’s recommendations emphasized some common 

themes, including the need for improved access to electronic information during committee and fl oor activities; automation of the management and production of 

legislative documents; adoption of common electronic 

format standards across legislative organizations; inclusion of electronic documents as part of the offi cial legislative record; adoption of a centralized administrative and 

cost model for technology deployed to Member offi ces; a 

greater technical integration and support of district offi ces; 

and improved mobile access to information and staff when 

Members are traveling or are unable to be physically present in their offi ces. Th e report also observed the importance of not allowing the adoption of new technologies to 

unduly change some of the intrinsic characteristics of the 

House, including the role deliberation and debate, opportunities for face-to-face interaction among Members, and 

the Members’ relationship to their constituents.687

During the 110th Congress (2007–2008), the Committee “placed a high priority on monitoring technology that 

supports Member offi ce and House operations, believing that 

broader technology improvements and greater investments by 

the House can provide substantial productivity gains, cost 

savings, and enhanced security.” In support of this eff ort, 

the Committee:

• approved numerous technology upgrades that increased 

the transparency of committee proceedings;

• “approved a policy allowing for engagement and maintenance of an unlimited number of unoffi cial web presences” (“allowed Members to place offi cial information 

in the virtual world, such as Facebook, YouTube, etc.”);

• oversaw “various continuity of operations exercises and 

worked with the CAO, the Architect of the Capitol, and 

the House Inspector General to identify any possible 

areas of systems failure and correct them;”

• “approved a transfer and expansion of wireless antennae throughout the House campus and the Visitor 

Center” in an eff ort to extend the reach of wireless 

communication devices;

• conducted a campus-wide survey of dead zone problems and worked with a private sector consortium of 

wireless providers to expand coverage without incurring any cost to taxpayers;

• saved (together with HIR) signifi cant funds by entering into blanket purchases agreements with two major 
236 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

vendors of computer equipment; and

• started (with the CAO) a training series that provided 

congressional staff with “access to information about 

technology effi ciencies already in place in congressional offi ces, many of which were unused or overlooked 

because of a lack of training.”688

2009–2011: Consolidation and Oversight

During the 111th and 112th Congresses, the use of computerization was consolidated and the Committee undertook 

eff orts to extend and oversee that consolidation.

Oversight of House Information Resources

Th e Committee provided bipartisan oversight of House Information Resources (HIR), one of the largest units within the 

offi ce of the Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO). Committee 

staff and CAO managers met weekly to review and discuss 

new initiatives, issues, and opportunities for HIR service to 

Members, committees, Leadership, and other support offi ces 

of the House.689

Support for New Members

As part of the 112th Congress transition, the Committee 

oversaw HIR’s setup of new Members offi ces in Washington, D.C. and in their home districts. Setup comprised website development, telecommunications, and general systems 

support.690 As part of HIR’s support for new members, its 

Security Offi ce briefed freshman Member offi ces on House 

IT security policies and best practices.

Enhanced HIR Services to the House

During 2011, the Committee and HIR worked together 

to enhance the technical services available to the House by 

expanding participation in the House Cloud; permitting the 

use of Skype® and ooVoo®.691 In May 2011, HIR also stressed 

the importance of IT security by beginning to publish a 

monthly IT security newsletter .

Enhancing support for mobility was an important 

focus. HIR continued to install wireless access points for 

the use of Members, committees, and staff of the House.692

Th e Committee requested that the Library of Congress provide an offi cial application for the iPad to provide electronic 

access to the Congressional Record which was fi rst released 

in January 2012. 

HIR evaluated and supported several mobility management solutions to allow non-Blackberry devices to be supported 

on the House network. Th e House began to support devices 

with specifi c versions of the iOS and Android operating systems 

for iPhone, iPad, and Android smart phones. 

Th e so called House Cloud off ers House offi ces a centralized, secure, and highly available computer infrastructure and 

hosted services. Hosted services are a cost-eff ective alternative 

to traditional, individual in-offi ce servers. A major advantage 

is that life-cycle replacement of systems is centrally funded; 

and updates, patches, and backups are centrally managed. Th is 

service includes continual monitoring, maintenance, security, 

and fi le replication to support business continuity and disaster 

recovery in a secure data center environment. Security was 

enhanced by providing backup servers at a second location. By 

the end of 2011, 318 House offi ces were using centrally hosted 

services of the House Cloud.

693 Among that number were the 

offi ces of Members new to the 112th Congress.

Oversight Hearing: Subcommittee on Oversight

Modernizing Information Delivery in the House. On June 

16, 2011, and in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the 

GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 

1993, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight held a 

hearing on modernizing information delivery in the House. 

In his opening statement, Representative Gingrey, who 

chaired the hearing, identifi ed the purposes of the hearing 

by saying, “Today, we are interested in learning from our 

witnesses . . . how we can improve information delivery in the 

House, how we can improve the way we create and distribute 

legislative documents, and how we [can] reduce costs and 

increase transparency.”694

In preparation for the hearing, the committee reached 

out to and received statements from the chairs of other House 

panels whose work bore upon the topic of the hearing: the 

Rules Committee; the Natural Resources Committee; and 

the Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology. Panel discussions touched 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 237

on a variety of themes, among which were the following:

• the extent to which congressional documents need to be 

maintained in hard copy and which can be made available only in electronic form so as to achieve cost savings;

• the use of open standards to create interoperable, accessible legislative information;

• the development of clean, well documented, timely; and 

authoritative data;

• the development of frameworks for accessibility and use 

of legislative, legal, and other data both in and out of 

Congress;

• facilitating the work of Congress;

• meeting the needs of legislative work fl ow;

• use of database management software to track committee work on bills before Congress;

• use of technology to manage documents and testimony 

submitted by witnesses at committee hearings;

• document management and bill tracking;

• data consistency over time;

• the role of mobile computing;

• meeting archival requirements—paper v. electronic 

storage; and

• data security

Clerk of the House

During the 112th Congress, the Committee worked with the 

Clerk of the House, as well as with the Majority Leader, the 

Rules Committee, and the Parliamentarian, to support a new 

and transparent process for House documents. Subsequently 

the Offi ce of the Clerk:

• eliminated mailing to each Member paper copies of the 

Legislative Activity Guides, which summarize the legislative actions of the House and present each Member’s 

cumulative voting record, and began emailing the Guides 

in electronic PDF format—for a savings of more than 

350,000 sheets of paper each Congress and several thousands of dollars every year;

• enhanced the HouseLive.gov website by making signifi -

cant improvements;

• provided technical leadership in developing standards 

for electronic posting of House and committee documents and data; and

• established docs.house.gov as the fi rst phase of a permanent document repository for documents relating to 

fl oor consideration; and

• worked with fi ve pilot committees on requirements for 

posting committee documents electronically. A naming standard and format requirement was established 

for specifi c committee documents after the Committee and the Offi ce of the Clerk worked with all House 

Committees. Th e Clerk planned software development 

to expand the docs.house.gov portal for planned release 

in early 2013.

Electronic Voting in the House

Origins and Development

The electric vote recorder was first invented by Thomas 

Edison in 1869.695 In Edison’s system “each legislator moved 

a switch to either a yes or no position, thus transmitting 

a signal to a central recorder that listed the names of the 

members in two columns of metal type headed ‘Yes’ and 

‘No.’”696 Edison demonstrated his system to the House of 

Representatives, where he was turned away by a committee 

chair, who told him:

Young man, that won’t do at all! Th at is just what 

we do not want. Your invention would destroy the 

only hope the minority would have of infl uencing legislation. It would deliver them over, bound 

hand and foot, to the majority. Th e present system 

gives them a weapon which is invaluable, and as the 

ruling majority knows that at some day they may 

become a minority, they will be as much averse to 

change as their opponents.697

In 1886, electric and mechanical voting was proposed 

for the House with the introduction of two separate resolutions. Representative Lewis Beach of New York introduced a resolution in February directing the Committee on 

Rules to “inquire into the feasibility of a plan for registering 

votes. . . . ”698 In June, Representative Benjamin Le Fevre 

of Ohio submitted a resolution on the electrical recording 

of the yeas and nays.699 Th e resolutions were referred to the 
238 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Committee on Rules. No further action was taken on either 

resolution.

As early as 1903, Th e New York Times reported that the 

House was again discussing the installation of an instrument to record votes.700 In 1912, Representative Ira Copley 

introduced H.Res. 385 “providing for the appointment of a 

committee to investigate and report whether it is practicable 

to install an electrical voting device in the House of Representatives for the purpose of recording the aye-and-nay 

votes of the Members.”701 In the third session of the 62nd

Congress (1911–1913), Representative Finis J. Garrett introduced H.Res. 768 “authorizing the Committee on Rules to 

investigate as to the advisability, practicability, and expense 

of installing some mechanical device for recording the vote 

of Members.”702 Both resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules, and neither received further consideration.

In the 63rd Congress (1913–1914) Representative Allan 

Walsh, an electrical engineer, introduced H.Res. 513, authorizing the purchase and installation of an automated voting 

system.703 A similar proposal, H.Res. 223, was introduced in 

the 64th Congress (1916) by Representative William Howard.704 Hearings were held in the 63rd Congress on H.Res. 

513 and in the 64th Congress on H.Res. 223.

During the hearings on H.Res. 513 and H.Res. 223, 

Members’ statements and questions focused on the length 

of time needed to vote in the House, the accuracy of such 

roll-call votes, and the cost of developing and implementing 

an electrical vote recording system. In the 63rd Congress, 

Representative Walsh testifi ed that “taking 45 minutes as 

the average time consumed in a roll call, the time consumed 

in the Sixty-second Congress in roll calls was 275 hours, or 

55 legislative days.” However, members of the Committee on 

Accounts were concerned that shortening votes could “fl ood 

the country with legislation” and disrupt then-used delaying 

tactics, “fi libuster by means of roll calls.”705

Th e hearings also addressed Members’ concerns that voting mistakes could be made using an electrical and mechanical system. In the hearings on H.Res. 513, Representative 

Walsh testifi ed that the voting system he envisioned would 

automatically cut off the circuit after a prescribed time to 

end a vote.706 In the instance where a Member missed a vote, 

Representative Walsh left to the Speaker the decision whether 

the Member would be allowed to vote. In the 64th Congress, 

H.Res. 223 sought to overcome this perceived defi ciency 

and allowed for vote changes either through the mechanical 

system or through a more traditional paper method.

Although the report on H.Res. 223 recommended the 

resolution’s adoption, there was still division in the Committee on Accounts over the desirability of such a voting system. 

A majority found that an electrical and mechanical system 

could help Members save time and avoid what was then the 

practice of reading each name twice for every roll-call vote 

and quorum call:

From the statements of the experts before the committee it is evident that such a device can be constructed. From a view of the working model of one 

device, it is evident that a practical voting system 

can be instituted, and from the statements of various Members of the House, it is evident that there 

is a very strong desire for some means of saving the 

time of Members. . . . Believing that a system can 

be adopted which will save time, encourage the 

regular attendance of Members, and insure absolute accuracy in registering and recording the votes 

of the Members, the adoption of this resolution is 

recommended.707

A minority opposed the concept of an electronic system 

and the potential loss of fl oor time to review proposals before 

casting a vote:

It must be frankly admitted that the proposed 

device, if properly installed in the House, will rapidly record the vote if all Members are present. Voting, however, is the most important function of a 

Member of Congress, and we seriously question 

the wisdom of hurrying this branch of the work. It 

frequently happens under the present system that 

Members are required to vote before they have fully 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 239

formed their judgment. Th e time taken in voting 

is obviously time of deliberation, of conference, 

of quiet discussion, and of interchange of views. 

Often, under the present system, before the voting 

has closed, Members change their votes. It is not an 

unreasonable thing to require a half hour or more to 

take the votes of 435 men who, as frequently happens, have been engaged in debate on an important 

question for weeks. . . . Speed is not the most necessary thing in legislation.708

Proposals to install automatic, electrical, or mechanical 

vote counting systems were introduced in the years following. 

Besides H.Res. 513 introduced by Representative Walsh in 

1915 and H.Res. 223 introduced by Representative Howard in 1916, only H.Res. 497 introduced by Representative 

Melville Kelly in 1923 received committee attention. Th e 

Committee on Accounts made no recommendation regarding H.Res. 497. However, the report notes “that all Members 

could vote simultaneously, if so desired. It was also shown 

that a great saving in times could be aff ected in the calling 

of the roll in the House by the use of one of these voting 

machines.”709 Table 1 lists each of the proposals to install 

automatic, electrical, mechanical, or electronic voting in the 

House of Representatives, prior to 1970.

Table 1. Electrical, Mechanical, Automated, and Electronic Voting Bills and Resolutions in the House of 

Representatives Before 1970

CONGRESS (YEARS) DATE INTRODUCED BILL NUMBER SPONSOR (PARTY-STATE)

49th (1885–1886) Feb. 1, 1886 N/A a Beach (D-NY)

49th (1885–1886) Jun. 7, 1886 N/A b Le Fevre (D-OH)

50th (1887–1888) Jan. 14, 1889 N/A c Cogswell (R-MA)

51st (1889–1890) Jan. 8, 1890 N/A d Cogswell (R-MA)

51st (1889–1890) Aug. 14, 1890 N/A e Giff ord (R-SD)

52nd (1891–1892) Jan. 25, 1892 N/A f Oates (D-AL)

62nd (1911–1912) Jan. 23, 1912 H.Res. 385 Copley (R-IL) g

62nd (1911–1912) Jan. 7, 1913 H.Res. 768 Garrett (D-TN)

63rd (1913–1914) Apr. 1, 1913 H.Res. 15 Copley (P-IL)

63rd (1913–1914) Jun. 26, 1913 H.Res. 187 Walsh (D-NJ)

63rd (1913–1914) Mar. 2, 1915 H.Res. 513 Walsh (D-NJ)

64th (1915–1916) Jul. 10, 1916 H.Res. 223 Howard (D-GA)

67th (1923–1924) Jan. 29, 1923 H.Res. 497 Kelly (P-PA) h

75th (1937–1938) May 25, 1938 H.R. 10756 Hill (D-WA)

77th (1941–1942) Jan. 1, 1941 H.R. 984 Hill (D-WA)

79th (1945–1946) Oct. 15, 1945 H.Res. 372 Bennett (R-MO)

79th (1945–1946) Jan. 29, 1946 H.R. 5263 Buck (R-NY)

80th (1947–1948) Jan. 29, 1947 H.R. 1433 Buck (R-NY)

80th (1947–1948) Nov. 24, 1947 H.R. 4557 Miller (R-NE)

81st (1949–1950) Jan. 2, 1949 H.R. 37 Davis (R-WI)

81st (1949–1950) Jun. 7, 1949 H.R. 5030 Bennett (D-FL)

81st (1949–1950) Jun. 13, 1949 H.R. 5121 Noland (D-IN)

81st (1949–1950) Jun. 21, 1949 H.Res. 261 Bennett (D-FL)

81st (1949–1950) Feb. 27, 1950 H.Res. 491 Noland (D-IN)
240 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

a. Representative Beach’s resolution was not assigned a number 

in the 49th Congress. Th e resolution can be found in U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Plan to Register Votes, Etc., 49th

Cong., 1st sess., Mis.Doc. 98, Serial Set 2415 (1886), p. 1, and in 

the Congressional Record, vol. 17, part 1 (Feb. 1, 1886), p. 1037.

b. Representative Le Fevre’s resolution was not assigned a number in the 49th Congress. Th e resolution can be found in U. S. 

Congress, House of Representatives, Electrical Recording of Yeas 

and Nays, 49th Cong., 1st sess., Mis.Doc. 315, Serial Set 2418 

(1886), p. 1, and in the Congressional Record, vol. 17, part 5 (Jun. 

7, 1886), p. 5365. 

c. Representative Cogswell’s resolution was not assigned a number in the 50th Congress. Th e resolution can be found in the 

Congressional Record, vol. 20, part 1 (Jan. 14, 1889), p. 761.

d. Representative Cogswell’s resolution was not assigned a number in the 51st Congress. Th e resolution can be found in the 

Congressional Record, vol. 21, part 1 (Jan. 8, 1890), p. 474.

e. Representative Giff ord’s resolution was not assigned a number in 

the 51st Congress. Th e resolution can be found in the Congressional 

Record, vol. 21, part 9 (Aug. 14, 1890), p. 8585.

f. Representative Oates’s resolution was not assigned a number in 

the 52nd Congress. Th e resolution can be found in the Congressional Record, vol. 23, part 1 (Jan. 25, 1892), p. 517.

g. Representative Copley represented an Illinois district from 1911 

to 1923 and was a member of the Republican Party during the 62nd, 

63rd and 65th through 67th Congresses. During the 64th Congress, 

Representative Copley represented the Progressive Party.

h. Representative Kelly was initially elected to the 63rd Congress 

as a member of the Republican Party. He was not re-elected to 

the 64th Congress, and was re-elected to the 65th Congress as a 

Progressive.

Table 1. Electrical, Mechanical, Automated, and Electronic Voting Bills and Resolutions in the House of 

Representatives Before 1970

CONGRESS (YEARS) DATE INTRODUCED BILL NUMBER SPONSOR (PARTY-STATE)

82nd (1951–1952) Jan. 3, 1951 H.R. 171 Davis (R-WI)

82nd (1951–1952) Jan. 4, 1951 H.R. 931 Le Compte (R-IA)

82nd (1951–1952) Jan. 12, 1951 H.R. 1326 Denton (D-IN)

82nd (1951–1952) Jun. 22, 1951 H.R. 4578 Jarman (D-OK)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan. 6, 1953 H.R. 988 Bennett (D-FL)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan. 6, 1953 H.R. 1039 Johnson (R-CA)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan 7, 1953 H.R. 1246 Davis (R-WI)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan. 9, 1953 H.R. 1397 Le Compte (R-IA)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan. 15, 1953 H.R. 1811 Dawson (R-UT)

83rd (1953–1954) Jan. 26, 1953 H.R. 2090 Elliott (D-AL)

83rd (1953–1954) Mar. 12, 1953 H.R. 3920 Jarman (D-OK)

84th (1955–1956) Jan. 5, 1955 H.R. 92 Denton (D-IN)

84th (1955–1956) Jan. 5, 1955 H.R. 128 Le Compte (R-IA)

84th (1955–1956) Jan. 5, 1955 H.R. 651 Davis (R-WI)

85th (1957–1958) Jan. 28, 1957 H.R. 3758 Denton (D-IN)

85th (1957–1958) Feb. 27, 1957 H.R. 5387 Jarman (D-OK)

85th (1957–1958) Jan. 3, 1958 H.R. 10436 Glenn (R-NJ)

86th (1959–1960) Jan. 7, 1959 H.R. 754 Denton (D-IN)

86th (1959–1960) Jan. 7, 1959 H.R. 814 Jarman (D-OK)

86th (1959–1960) Jan. 15, 1959 H.R. 2537 Glenn (R-NJ)

87th (1961–1962) Jan. 3, 1961 H.R. 954 Glenn (R-NJ)

87th (1961–1962) Feb. 7, 1961 H.R. 3966 Denton (D-IN)

87th (1961–1962) Jul. 10, 1961 H.R. 8047 Tupper (R-ME)

88th (1963–1964) Feb. 27, 1963 H.R. 4311 Glenn (R-NJ)

89th (1965–1966) Jan. 14, 1965 H.R. 2805 Denton (D-IN)

91st (1969–1970) Jan. 3, 1969 H.R. 397 Bennett (D-FL)

91st (1969–1970) Jan. 14, 1969 H.R. 3340 Davis (R-WI)
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 241

Between 1945 and 1970, Members of the House testifi ed at both House and Senate hearings on the need for an 

automated voting system. During 1945 hearings held by 

the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, two 

members of the House testifi ed in favor of an electronic voting system, but the idea did not generate enough support to 

be included in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.710

Subsequently, when Congress again turned its attention to 

the reorganization of Congress in 1965, a substantial majority of those testifying before the Committee on the merits 

of an electrical voting system advocated the installation of 

such a plan.711

Role of the Committee

Th e Committee on House Administration began its formal 

involvement in the discussions of electronic voting in 1969. 

During the Democratic Caucus’s organizational meeting for 

the 91st Congress (1969–1970), Representative Charles Price 

introduced a resolution on vote recording procedures in the 

House of Representatives. Th e resolution stated:

RESOLVED: Th at it is the sense of the caucus 

that the Speaker of the House shall immediately 

proceed to take such steps as may be necessary 

to improve the vote recording procedures in the 

House of Representatives.712

Th e resolution was agreed to and sent to the Speaker 

of the House. In response to the resolution, Speaker John 

McCormack of Massachusetts sent a letter to the Committee 

on House Administration asking it to examine automated 

voting. In his letter, Speaker McCormack indicated that he 

was sure, while the resolution was adopted by the Democratic 

Caucus, “that all of our Republican colleagues would approve 

of the same.”713 

Th e Committee on House Administration’s special subcommittee on electrical and mechanical offi ce equipment 

held a hearing in April 1969 on electrical and mechanical 

voting.714 During the hearing, Representative Frederick 

Schwengel of Iowa, the ranking member, seemed to sum 

up the Subcommittee’s desire for an electronic voting system: “On electronic voting, I think this is something we can 

do now which will improve the eff ectiveness and effi ciency, 

particularly the effi ciency, of our operations. So I am all for 

moving forward as fast as we possibly can to the consideration 

of the matter.”715

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, as introduced and reported in the House, did not mention electronic 

voting.716 Representative Robert McClory offered a floor 

amendment to authorize the development of an electronic 

voting system and to amend then House Rule XV to allow 

the system to be used to conduct votes and quorum calls 

after its development.717 Th e amendment, agreed to by voice 

vote, is contained in Section 121 of the Act. As part of his 

fl oor speech in support of the amendment, Representative 

McClory acknowledged the work done on the subject of 

automated voting by other Members and the Committee on 

House Administration:

I should like to point out that a report on this subject 

was made by a member of the original Reorganization Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 

HALL). It is also the subject of legislation at this session introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 

BENNETT), and the gentleman from Wisconsin 

(Mr. DAVIS). I know that the Committee on House 

Administration has already undertaken studies. I 

know that the Clerk has made recommendations to 

the Committee on House Administration, and I feel 

that this amendment is an expression of support of 

the House for the work of the Committee on House 

Administration and perhaps to emphasize the need 

to bring their recommendations to the fl oor of the 

House in the form of a more specifi c and detailed 

change at the earliest possible time. It does not specify a particular system.718

President Richard M. Nixon signed the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 into law on October 26, 1970.719

Designing the Electronic Voting System. In December 1970, the Clerk of the House contracted with Informatics 
242 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Inc. to design the voting system. Guided by instructions from 

House Information Systems (H.I.S.) and the Committee on 

House Administration, Informatics set fi ve objectives and 

guidelines for designing the system. Th ey were:

• Th e system should signifi cantly reduce the time required 

to vote and also meet the information needs of system 

users.

• Each system user, Representative, Tally Clerk, press, etc. 

should have a simple and consistent interface with the 

system from both a hardware and software viewpoint.

• Th e system should have a very high degree of reliability 

with appropriate levels of automatic testing.

• Hardware should be highly compatible with the Chamber decor so as to be as unobtrusive as possible and still 

function properly.

• Absolute lowest cost is not a prime consideration when 

weighed against other design objectives; however, costs 

should be handled prudently.720

Informatics estimated that completing these objectives would 

cost a total of $900,000.721

Informatics worked on the preliminary design concept 

for the electronic voting system until September 1971 when 

H.I.S. recommended the termination of its contract. H.I.S. 

then took Informatics’ design and continued to refi ne and 

develop the electronic voting system. In November 1971, 

Representative John Dent introduced and the House agreed 

to H.Res. 601. Th is resolution authorized $1.5 million for the 

maintenance and improvement of existing computer systems 

and the creation of a computer systems staff ,722 whose primary 

task was the creation of the electronic voting system.723 Also 

in November 1971, the Committee on House Administration approved a contract with Control Data Corporation to 

“develop a fully operational electronic voting system”724 based 

on the work of Informatics and H.I.S.. 

Instead of having an electrical and mechanical system, 

the House chose a fully electronic, computer-based system 

with an electronic display board “which fl ashes a running 

tally and records each member’s vote on an overhead scoreboard and a computer printout.”725 Th e electronic voting system consisted, in part, of voting stations located throughout 

the House, in contrast to earlier proposals that linked voting 

to individual voting boxes that were affi xed to desks in the 

House chamber. In this respect, the system was unlike those 

used in many state and local legislative bodies. Representative Joseph D. Waggonner enumerated the impracticality of 

returning to the pre-1913 practice of assigning seats726 as a 

function of the number of seats in the House chamber and 

the imbalance between Democrats and Republicans in a 

Congress. “How many Democrats are in the House of Representative today? It was 244, I believe. . . . How many seats 

are there on this side of the aisle? Th ere are 224. And there 

are 224 over there.”727

In preparation for the use of electronic voting, the House 

adopted H.Res. 1123, which amended House rules to provide for electronic voting in the next Congress in October of 

1972.728 On January 23, 1973, the House conducted its fi rst 

vote by electronic device, a quorum call.729

In March 1973, Chairman Hays, in a letter to Control 

Data Corporation, wrote that fi nal system acceptance would 

not be completed until a “list of system defi ciencies are corrected.” Th e defi ciencies were divided into two categories, 

items that had yet to be completed and items that were unacceptable. Th ese items included hardware maintenance documentation, delivery of card reader machines, creation of an 

installation plan for the Speaker’s CRT monitor, installation 

of the Speaker’s CRT monitor, installation of fi ve additional 

voting stations, programmer training, preventative maintenance schedules, warping panels, CRT monitor malfunctioning, and insuffi cient inventory of maintenance parts, 

and non-English error messages on CRT monitors.730 Th ese 

issues prevented the Committee on House Administration 

from authorizing fi nal payment to Control Data Corporation 

until October 1974.731

Operation of Voting Equipment. House Members 

may vote at any station located throughout the chamber.732

To vote, a Member inserts “. . . a little plastic card which is 

punched on either end identically, so you can put it in upside 

down or backwards . . .”733 into one of the voting stations 

and presses one of three buttons: Yea, Nay, or Present. A 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 243

Member’s vote is then displayed in panels above the press 

gallery seats, directly above the Speaker’s dais. A green light 

indicates a Member voted Yea, a red light indicates a Member 

voted Nay, and an amber light indicates a Member voted 

Present.734 Today, Member voting cards have magnetic strips 

that contain identifi cation information. To vote a Member 

follows the same procedure as before. 

Two summary displays, on the balconies to the right 

and left of the Speaker’s dais, keep a running total of votes 

cast and how much time remains for a vote.735 Members, 

in general, today have a minimum of 15 minutes to record 

a vote.736

Once he or she has voted, a Member may check his or 

her vote by reinserting the card and noting which light is 

illuminated at the voting station. A Member may also change 

his or her vote in the same manner by depressing the corresponding button. If a Member wishes to change his or 

her vote after the fi rst 10 minutes of a 15-minute vote, the 

Member must use a teller card (well card) in the well of the 

House.737 Th ese teller cards are manually entered into the 

electronic voting system by a tally clerk. Members’ votes so 

recorded are refl ected on the panels above the Speaker’s dais 

(along with the votes of Members who voted at the voting stations), in the running total display boards on either side of the 

chamber, and as a vote change in the Congressional Record.738

For a fi ve-minute or two-minute vote, changes may be made 

electronically throughout the voting process.

Between the 93rd and 97th Congresses (1973–1982), 

House Information Systems staff put the electronic voting 

system through a daily four-step process to ensure it was 

working properly.739 First, the electronic voting system was 

initialized each morning of a legislative day and tests were 

conducted on all chamber equipment, including the main 

display panels, summary display panels, voting stations, and 

video consoles. Second, the electronic voting system was 

placed in production mode and made available for votes. 

Third, during use, a computer technician monitored the 

system to ensure the system remained operational. Finally, a 

member of the clerk’s offi ce acted as a fl oor monitor to assist 

Members in use of the system and to close down inoperable 

voting stations as necessary.740

System Maintenance. Since 1973, the Committee has 

taken an active role in updating and upgrading the electronic 

voting system. Th ese upgrades and updates include changes 

in voting information retrieval, how votes are displayed on 

closed-circuit television, how Members may change their 

votes during a vote, and computer equipment and programming upgrades. Upgrades, updates, and changes were initially 

handled by House Information Systems (H.I.S.). During 

the 104th Congress (1995–1996), the Committee on House 

Administration, then called the Committee on House Oversight, approved the transfer of legislative operations on the 

House fl oor to the Clerk of the House.741 Th is action included 

the transfer of the electronic voting system from H.I.S. to 

the Clerk’s Offi ce of Legislative Computer Systems (LCS). 

LCS continues to operate and maintain the electronic voting system, with the Committee on House Administration 

providing oversight.

Upgrades to the electronic voting system were made 

multiple times in recent years. For example, in the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the voting system software was migrated 

to “more modern computer equipment,”742 and in the 99th

Congress (1985–1986), a microcomputer was installed by 

H.I.S. to act as backup system.743 Further updates and maintenance of the voting system continued to be performed 

throughout this time period.744

In January 2004, the computer hardware that runs the 

electronic voting system was upgraded in the House. Th at 

upgrade was “the fourth major upgrade of the EVS [electronic voting system] since its inception in 1972.” Details 

of the upgrade were not provided by the Offi ce of the Clerk, 

although it was reported that the electronic voting equipment 

was located in the Rayburn House Offi ce Building and was 

connected to the Capitol and the House Chamber through 

a secure connection.745

In the 109th Congress (2005–2006), the Committee 

on House Administration took two actions related to the 

electronic voting system. First, the Committee authorized 
244 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the release of a House Inspector General report on the voting system entitled “General and Application Controls in the 

House Electronic Voting System.” Second, the Committee 

approved a purchase order for a voting display system for the 

Capitol Visitor Center auditorium.746

During the 111th Congress (2009–2010), the Clerk of 

the House upgraded and modernized the Electronic Voting 

System’s infrastructure. Th e upgrades included computerizing all electronic display boards, including how names are 

displayed on the boards. Computerizing the boards “...makes 

it easy to add or remove names, or to redistribute the complete 

list among the remaining display boards if one of them should 

fail.” Additionally, the upgrade enhanced the summary display boards to allow for “additional legislative information” 

and brought the voting technology into compliance with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act.747

Televised House Floor Debate

Origins and Development

In 1944, Senator Claude Pepper of Florida off ered the fi rst 

proposal to open the chambers of Congress to television cameras. S.J. Res. 145 directed the Architect of the Capitol to aid 

the major broadcasting companies in establishing a system 

of broadcasting from the House and Senate Chambers. Th e 

“Pepper Resolution,” one scholar observed, “fathered the 

modern legislative eff orts to implement congressional television. Between 1944 and 1977, 54 additional resolutions were 

introduced in Congress calling for some form of congressional 

broadcasting.”748

Th e years immediately after World War II ushered in 

television as a new broadcasting medium that would touch 

the lives of millions of Americans and profoundly aff ect journalism’s relationship with Congress. From 1948 to April 

1952, at least 15 Senate committees and four House committees held hearings that were televised or photographed by 

newsreel cameras, a Library of Congress study found.749 Th e 

potential impact of television coverage on Congress, however, 

perhaps was not fully appreciated until March 1951, when live 

coverage of the Senate Select Committee to Investigate Crime 

in Interstate Commerce was broadcast to an estimated 20 to 

30 million television viewers along the eastern seaboard and 

the Midwest. Th e hearings, by virtue of being televised, “catapulted into national prominence” the Committee’s chairman, 

Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, who “almost overnight 

became a leading contender for the presidency.”750

Television also provided news coverage of dramatic 

House committee hearings, including those of the Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948. Th e possibility of 

further televised hearings of House committees, however, was 

cut short in 1952 when Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas held 

in a fl oor ruling that neither the proceedings of the full House 

nor those of individual House committees could be permitted without House adoption of a rule to that eff ect.751 Th e 

prohibition against radio and television coverage of House 

committee hearings remained in eff ect until 1970, while the 

bar against coverage of House fl oor sessions would not be 

lifted until October 1977.

During the interim, broad network television coverage 

of such prominent Senate hearings as the Army-McCarthy 

hearings of 1954, labor racketeering hearings in 1957, Senate 

Rules and Administration Committee hearings on Bobby 

Baker in 1964, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

hearings on Vietnam in 1966, attracted millions of television viewers. Th e coverage of Senate hearings, and the closeness with which television brought Senate committees to the 

American viewer, were contributing factors to the gradual 

change in the attitude of the House toward television coverage of committee proceedings. In 1965, several witnesses 

supported proposals to broadcast fl oor proceedings in testimony before the Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress. Th e matter was also considered at some length 

during the hearings on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1970 by that Committee’s Special Subcommittee on Legislative Reorganization. Although the fi nal version of the Act 

did not provide for broadcasting fl oor proceedings, it did 

authorize broadcasting of House committee hearings for 

the fi rst time.752 Over the next few years, nearly every House 

committee changed its rules to allow broadcasting.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 245

In 1973, network television devoted hundreds of hours 

of live coverage to the Senate Watergate hearings, and six days 

to comprehensive live coverage of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President 

Richard M. Nixon in July 1974. As these proceedings were 

capturing the attention of the nation, the Joint Committee 

on Congressional Operations undertook a two-year study 

of the question of broadcasting fl oor proceedings. Extensive 

investigation and hearings led the Joint Committee to issue 

a report in October 1974 strongly recommending the idea. 

Early in 1976, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broadcasting of 

the House Committee on Rules came to the same conclusion 

following its own examination. Both committees determined 

that: (1) broadcasting off ered great potential for educating 

millions of Americans about the business and functions 

of Congress; (2) broadcasting technology was suffi ciently 

advanced to provide for televising or recording unobtrusively 

without disrupting fl oor proceedings; (3) if the experience 

of State legislatures (almost all of which allowed broadcast 

coverage of their Chambers) was any indication, broadcast 

coverage of the House and Senate in the long run would 

encourage dignifi ed Member conduct on the fl oor rather 

than fl amboyant “grandstanding.”753 Th ese recommendations were supported by numerous meetings, extensive staff 

work, exhaustive studies, and hearings by the House Rules 

Committee on April 16 and June 17, 1975, and by the Ad 

Hoc Subcommittee on Broadcasting on December 9, 1975.754

On the basis of its conclusions, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broadcasting completed its fi nal markup of H.Res. 

875 (94th Congress), and on February 4, 1976, voted to 

report the resolution, with amendments to the full Committee on Rules. A subsequent meeting with House Speaker Carl 

Albert of Oklahoma and House Majority Leader Th omas P. 

O’Neill of Massachusetts late in February prompted the Ad 

Hoc Subcommittee to issue two supplemental reports that 

sought to address concerns raised by the party leaders. “Th e 

two main concerns expressed were that the resolution did not 

adequately refl ect the Speaker’s prerogatives for the control of 

the Chamber of the House, and that the resolution mandated 

the Clerk to enter into a contract with a specifi ed party.” 

Although the Ad Hoc Subcommittee devoted considerable 

eff ort to revising the resolution, it was never reported by the 

Rules Committee.755

Th e following March, however, Representative O’Neill, 

who had become Speaker at the beginning of the 95th Congress (1977–1978), authorized a 90-day test using closed-circuit telecasts of House fl oor proceedings to Members’ offi ces. 

Th is move was to serve as a possible prelude to a House broadcasting system to which the electronic news media would be 

allowed access. Th e experiment was labeled a success, and on 

October 27, 1977, the House passed H.Res. 866, authorizing 

the Speaker to implement a permanent system for distribution of House fl oor broadcast proceedings to the broadcast 

news media.756

Before the House established its broadcasting system, 

however, the Senate set a broadcasting precedent on February 

2, 1978, when it passed S. Res. 268, allowing broadcast news 

organizations sound access to the fl oor debate on the Panama 

Canal Treaty.757 Th e action made the Senate the fi rst of the 

two houses ever to allow radio broadcasts of its regular fl oor 

proceedings. After the Panama debate, however, the Senate 

declined to allow any further broadcasts of its fl oor sessions 

for a considerable period of time.758

Th e House, meanwhile, addressed a remaining controversial issue—whether employees of the House or an outside 

entity would operate the television cameras of the soon-to-be 

established House broadcasting operation. In June 1978, the 

House voted to fund a television system with cameras under 

the control and operation of House employees. In a separate 

action, the same June 1978, the House’s voice amplifi cation 

system was made accessible to broadcasters, and, for the fi rst 

time in history, voice excerpts of the House fl oor debates 

began to appear in radio news reports. 

Role of the Committee

Also in June 1978, House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill 

appointed an Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee on Broadcasting. 

Th e three-member Committee consisted of Representatives 

Charles Rose of North Carolina (chairman), Jack Brooks 

of Texas, and Gillis Long of Louisiana. A fourth member, 
246 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

David Stockman of Michigan, was added in early 1979. 

Representatives Rose and Stockman were drawn from the 

membership of the Committee on House Administration to 

serve on the Speaker’s Advisory Committee. “Th e responsibility of the Speaker’s Advisory Committee was two-fold: (1) to 

develop a system for closed-circuit viewing in the three House 

offi ce buildings and the House side of the Capitol; and (2) to 

make available to the electronic news media top-quality audio 

and video broadcast signals.” Th e staff of the Committee on 

House Administration “worked closely with the offi ce of the 

Architect of the Capitol and with the Clerk of the House, 

since much of the work was done by personnel of the House 

of Representatives.”759

Initially, in June 1978, “news organizations began broadcasting House proceedings over radio,” and in late February 

1979, fl oor proceedings began to be televised “on a closedcircuit basis to the House offi ce buildings.” Following a fourweek trial period, the television signal was made available to 

the broadcast media on March 19, 1979. “Th e Cable Satellite 

Public Aff airs Network (C-SPAN), the private non-profi t 

cooperative of the cable television industry, was launched in 

1979 with the express purpose of televising Congress. House 

employees remained in control of the cameras.” Within a year, 

“C-SPAN was telecasting the House in action to more than 

1,000 systems reaching 7.2 million homes in all 50 states.”760

Prior to the initial live broadcast from the House Chamber, the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Broadcasting 

contracted with experts in the areas of lighting, sound systems 

and television systems design in an eff ort to “apply broadcasting technology as eff ectively as possible to the unique requirements of the House chamber.” Th e Advisory Committee 

authorized the “Clerk to employ persons having professional 

backgrounds in broadcasting; and it purchased and installed 

television and associated equipment which met high industry standards.” Costs incurred by the Advisory Committee 

“in establishing the House television system including the 

purchase of equipment, relighting the House chamber and 

designing a television operation center in the House side of 

the Capitol, came to approximately $1.2 million.”761

Later in 1979, at the request of the Speaker, the Committee on House Administration “conducted a study into the 

impact of television broadcasting of fl oor proceedings on the 

House of Representatives.” He asked that the Committee: (1) 

“assist his Advisory Committee on Broadcasting in determining if the House Broadcasting System was being developed in 

the best possible way;” (2) “look into the impact that television is having on the legislative process;” and (3) “determine 

the best procedure for developing the House Television System that will be of greatest benefi t to the institution.”762

 Th e Committee’s fi ndings were based “upon the results 

of a questionnaire which was mailed to every House member 

late in 1979; 297 Members responded to the survey, giving 

their views about attitudes toward television cameras and 

about possible expansion of the system to include broadcasts 

of committee hearings and increased programming of an 

educational nature. Follow-up interviews were made and a 

detailed analysis of the” Congressional Record was conducted. 

Th e Record analysis compared “one-minute speeches, special orders, and regular debate—before and after the House 

began television broadcasts of its fl oor proceedings.” As a 

consequence of the study, the Committee “recommended 

that the Committee on Rules review three areas where potential problems existed—discrepancies between the printed 

RECORD and video recordings, unauthorized copying of 

broadcast tapes for commercial or political uses, and the use 

of exhibits to illustrate remarks on the fl oor.” In addition, the 

study recommended that greater use be made of the closedcircuit system by supplying additional informational and 

educational programming to Members and staff .763

The House Administration survey was subsequently 

cited during 1981 Senate Rules and Administration hearings 

on the question of providing television and radio coverage of 

proceedings in the Senate Chamber. “In specifi c terms, the 

survey found that House members perceived television as 

having had a greater eff ect on their colleagues than on themselves. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed felt that television’s presence had had no infl uence on their fl oor attendance, 

but 17 percent felt that other House members were spending 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 247

more time on the fl oor.” With regard to fl oor debate, “20 

percent said that debate was less substantive, whereas 15 percent said it was more substantive. Eighty-eight percent said 

that television’s presence had not induced them to make fl oor 

speeches that otherwise would not have been made, but 77 

percent said their colleagues had increased their speechmaking.” Interestingly, “[f]ifty-six percent of the survey respondents said they felt better informed on issues after listening to 

fl oor speeches on their offi ce television sets. And a surprising 

25 percent said they had increased their familiarity of fl oor 

proceedings by observing television debate.”764

While “[t]here is no indication that public esteem for 

either the House or the Senate has improved as a result of 

television,” plenty of evidence exists “that the public has 

benefi tted from televised House and Senate proceedings. 

Congressional television has increased awareness of particular 

issues, allowed the public to hear a wide spectrum of views 

on these issues, and instructed viewers in the fundamentals 

of the legislative process.”765

Since the fi rst regular broadcast of House fl oor proceedings on March 19, 1979,766 the Committee on House Administration has maintained oversight authority over maintenance and contracts related to television infrastructure. For 

example, in the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the committee 

authorized the release of a request for proposal (RFP) seeking 

bids for high defi nition television design and engineering.767

Similarly, in the 109th Congress, the committee authorized a 

RFP and contract for closed captioning services for the House 

fl oor768 and the issuance of a RFP for the high defi nition 

television conversion project.769

Beginning in the 110th Congress (2007–2008), the 

committee adopted a committee rule on the broadcasting of 

committee hearings and meetings.770 In the 112th Congress 

(2011–2012), the rule reads as follows:

Whenever any hearing or meeting conducted by the 

Committee is open to the public, those proceedings 

shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and 

still photography, as provided in Clause 4 of House 

Rule XI, subject to the limitations therein. Operation 

and use of any Committee Internet broadcast system 

shall be fair and nonpartisan and in accordance with 

Clause 4(b) of Rule XI and all other applicable rules 

of the Committee and the House.771

Additionally, in the 111th Congress (2009–2010), at the 

direction of the Speaker of the House and chair of the committee, the Clerk of the House implemented a web-based 

streaming service, called HouseLive and located at www.

houselive.gov, “that off ers real-time video of House sessions 

back to the beginning of the 111th Congress, accessible to the 

public, and which has a search feature to easily locate particular speeches and appearances of Members.”772

Video Records of Committee Proceedings

Origins and Development

Committees began to install permanent committee-operated 

webcasting equipment beginning with the Committees on 

Science and International Relations in the 107th Congress 

(2001–2002). 

As additional hearing rooms were equipped with audio 

and video equipment as part of the hearing room upgrade 

process the House Recording Studio began broadcasting 

hearings on House Cable in addition to the committee operated web casting over the Internet.

In the 112th Congress (2011–2012) House Rules were 

amended to require each Committee, to the maximum extent 

practicable, to provide audio and video coverage of each committee hearing or meeting and maintain recordings that are 

easily accessible to the public.

Role of the Committee

As part of the hearing room upgrade process the Committee managed the installation of audio and video equipment. 

During the initial process control stations were built adjacent 

to each hearing room equipped with audio and video equipment. In May 2005, the House Judiciary and Committee on 

House Administrations started using the prototype booths as 

proof on concept. From late 2005 through 2007 the design 

and build-out of the media center and ancillary rack space 
248 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

and connectivity was completed as part of the House Recording Studio.

In the 110th Congress (2007–2008) Committees transitioned to being operated out of the Media center booths 

which increased the productivity of the House Recording 

Studio staff .

In the 112th Congress (2011–2012) the Committee 

worked with the Library of Congress and the House Recording Studio to centralize the webcasting of committee proceedings. Th e House Recording Studio built a set of centralized 

web casting equipment to support archiving and standardized 

internet availability by the Library of Congress.

Services

Administration and Operation of House Offi ce 

Buildings, the House Wing of the Capitol, and the 

Capitol Visitor Center

Th e Committee’s authority over the administration of House 

Offi ce Buildings and the House wing of the U.S. Capitol is 

found in House Rule X, clause 1(j).773 Th is is a responsibility 

fi rst noted in language creating the Committee in 1946.774

Th e Committee shares this responsibility with the House 

Committee on Appropriations and the House Offi ce Building 

Commission. Th e Commission, which was fi rst created on 

March 4, 1907, issues rules and regulations that govern the 

use and occupancy of all rooms in the House Offi ce Buildings.775 Th e Commission consists of the Speaker and two 

other appointed members, traditionally the House Majority 

and Minority leaders.

In fulfi lling its duties with respect to the daily administration of the House offi ce buildings, the Committee has held 

hearings on various matters and examined bills and resolutions. Over the years, it has become involved in issues related 

to general maintenance, recycling, the use of the Rotunda 

and other areas for ceremonial occasions and activities, and 

especially in recent years, overseeing improvements to security and the construction and administration of the Capitol 

Visitor Center. 

Maintenance, Modernization, and Fire and LifeSafety Oversight

Th e Committee works with the Architect of the Capitol (the 

Architect) to ensure the smooth operability of House facilities. 

Th e Architect is responsible for maintaining the buildings and 

grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Th e Architect is authorized to 

employ a Superintendent of the House Offi ce Buildings (the 

Superintendent) to assist in these duties and serve under the 

Architect’s jurisdiction. Th e Superintendent is responsible for 

maintenance of the Ford, Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon House Offi ce Buildings, as was formerly responsible for 

the House Page Dormitory as well. Th e Superintendent also 

supervises the biennial offi ce lottery and moves. 

Over its history, the Committee has worked with the 

Architect and the Superintendent on fi re and safety issues in 

the offi ce buildings.776 Th e Committee has also worked with 

the Offi ce of Inspector General, which sought the views of 

the Committee in 1998, for example, during preparation of a 

maintenance audit for the House buildings. Th e Committee 

has also authorized the Inspector General to prepare a series 

of reports on the implementation of corrective actions in this 

area.777 Th e Committee held a hearing on May 6, 2009, with 

then-Acting Architect Stephen T. Ayers, to discuss major 

renovations to the House offi ce buildings. Th e Committee 

has since monitored progress on the East House Underground 

Garage renovation, for example, and has monitored planning 

for the Cannon House Offi ce Building renovation, which is 

scheduled to begin in 2016. 

The Committee also has monitored the installation 

of multimedia equipment and communications devices 

throughout the House buildings and upgrades in committee hearing rooms. Th ese upgrades have included enhanced 

wireless access throughout the House offi ce buildings and the 

Capitol Visitor Center. 

Use of Rotunda for Ceremonial Occasions

In recent congresses, a number of concurrent resolutions have 

been agreed to authorizing activities in the Capitol Rotunda. 

The resolutions have authorized ceremonies related to the 

awarding of congressional gold medals and commemorations, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 249

and as well as use for presidential inaugurations and for individuals to lie in state or honor. Although the Committee has 

jurisdiction over legislation concerning the use of this space, 

these noncontroversial resolutions were brought up either after 

the Committee was discharged or by suspension of the rules. 

Access and Security

Th e Committee has also overseen security and access issues 

concerning the House side of the Capitol. In a hearing held 

on September 10, 2002, to examine upgrades to Capitol security since the terrorist attacks of the previous year, Chairman 

Robert Ney noted that “the Committee has been actively 

and consistently engaged in new security measures and the 

approval of the security-related devices installed in the Capitol buildings and the surrounding House offi ce buildings.”778

Th e Committee has also worked with the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Capitol Police, and the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration to develop new 

guidelines for visitors on offi cial business wishing to access the 

Capitol from the tunnels in the Rayburn and Russell offi ce 

buildings, issuing a “Dear Colleague” letter to communicate 

new procedures.779 Finally, the Committee provides oversight 

of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.780 The Sergeant at 

Arms, who coordinates daily security needs of the House of 

Representatives with the Capitol Police and is a member of 

the Capitol Police Board, coordinates protective details for 

House leadership, requests security clearances for appropriate 

staff , and issues identifi cation badges and pins to Members 

and staff .

Capitol Visitor Center

While the possibility of a new structure to enhance visitor 

safety and comfort had been discussed for many years, the 

violence at the Capitol on July 24, 1998 that left two U.S. 

Capitol Police offi cers mortally wounded, as well as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, refocused attention 

on the need for greater screening of visitors to the Capitol 

Complex.781 When it opened to the public on December 2, 

2008, the 580,000 square foot Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) 

represented the largest-ever addition to the Capitol. 

CVC Planning and Construction

Since the initial discussions, the Committee on House 

Administration, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, 

the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

and others were involved in planning for the CVC and overseeing its administration. Th e Committee also participated 

in CVC planning through the work of some of its members 

who also served on the United States Capitol Preservation 

Commission (CPC).782 Th e CPC is an 18-member bipartisan, bicameral, board of congressional leaders, including the 

Committee’s chair and ranking member, and is chaired by 

the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of 

the House of Representatives. 

Funding was provided in the Omnibus Consolidated 

and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999, 

which was enacted on October 21, 1998 (P.L. 105-277) for the 

“planning, engineering, design, and construction of a Capitol 

visitor center.”783 Th e following year, construction approval 

authority for the center was statutorily given to the CPC.784

During the planning stages, the Committee on House 

Administration worked with the Architect of the Capitol 

(AOC), the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Capitol Police 

to develop and implement plans for the construction of the 

CVC, to determine staffi ng needs following the opening of 

the new facility, and examine expected security enhancements benefi ts. Th ese benefi ts were discussed during a September 10, 2002, hearing, for example, when Architect of the 

Capitol Alan Hantman told the Committee that:

. . . the CVC will greatly improve the ability of the 

Capitol Police and the Capitol Guide Service to 

regulate and to respectfully manage the large fl ow 

of visitors to the Capitol, which will improve both 

security and safety for all. Further, the CVC also 

will facilitate evacuation out of the Capitol Building 

if necessary.785
250 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

CVC Governance and Operations

As the CVC neared completion, the Committee began to 

focus on issues related to its governance and opening. In January 2008, Chairman Brady introduced H.R.5159, to address 

issues related to the management and operation of the CVC. 

Th e bill established the Offi ce of the Capitol Visitor Center 

within the Offi ce of the Architect of the Capitol, headed by 

the Chief Executive Offi cer for Visitor Services, to provide for 

the eff ective management and administration of the CVC. 

Th e bill also (1) stated that the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Rules and Administration 

shall provide policy review and oversight of the CVC, (2) 

provided for the gift shops, restaurants and catering, and 

established a CVC revolving fund, (3) transferred the Capitol 

Guide Service to the CVC, (4) addressed room assignment 

authorities and regulations, and (5) established the Offi ce of 

Congressional Accessibility Services. Th e bill was marked 

up by the Committee on February 12, which then favorably 

reported it as amended. Th e House report on the bill contains 

a lengthy letter, dated March 30, 2007, signed by the Speaker 

and House Minority Leader and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders to Acting Architect Ayers, explaining the leadership’s rationale for this organizational structure: 

Th e bi-cameral and bi-partisan Leadership of the 

110th Congress has concluded that the management of the operations and administration of the 

CVC, including the administration and management of its facilities and visitor services, should be 

carried out within the Architect of the Capitol’s 

(AOC) organization. Th at conclusion is based on 

the condition that managing the operations and 

administration of the CVC shall be carried out as 

a separate, self-contained line of business for the 

AOC, independently run under the direct management of a Chief Executive Offi cer for Visitor 

Services (CEOVS), who reports to the AOC, as well 

as to the Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate with responsibilities for the 

operation, management and funding of the CVC. 

Although the Architect will be responsible for the 

CVC, we expect the CEOVS to: conduct both long 

term planning and day-to-day operations; interact and be the CVC point person with leadership 

and oversight committees; develop and prepare the 

CVC budget; be responsible for the effi ciency and 

eff ectiveness of the visitor experience; and be the 

outside spokesperson for the CVC. Th e annual rate 

of pay for the CEOVS shall be equivalent to that of 

the AOC’s Chief Operating Offi cer . . .”786

On March 5, the House passed the bill by voice vote. 

On September 27, the Senate adopted an amended version 

of H.R. 5159. On October 2, the House concurred with the 

Senate amendment, and President George W. Bush signed it 

into law on October 20, 2008 (P.L. 110-437). 

On September 26, 2008, Chairman Brady introduced H. 

Con. Res. 435, the fi rst concurrent resolution authorizing the 

use of Emancipation Hall. Th e resolution, which was agreed 

to in the House on October 2 and in the Senate on November 

20, allowed the space to be used for ceremonies and activities 

held in connection with the opening of the CVC.

Since that time, the Committee has also provided guidance related to staffi ng and improved signage. Th e Committee 

has also worked with the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms 

to monitor the timing of security screening; with the CAO to 

enhance cellular phone access in the CVC; with the Architect 

to implement an inclement-weather policy, ensure Americanmade goods in the gift shop to the greatest extent possible, and 

develop guidelines and training for staff -led tours; and with the 

Government Printing Offi ce (GPO) to maximize CVC use of 

the GPO and to oversee supporting publications.787

Tours and the Visitor Experience

In an October 17, 2007, hearing, the Committee examined 

plans related to the visitor experience at the CVC.788 Witnesses included CVC Chief Executive Offi cer Terrie Rouse, 

U.S. Capitol Director of Visitor Services Tom Stevens, and 

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse. During the hearing, 

questions were raised regarding the future of Capitol tours 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 251

led by congressional staff , with members discussing the need 

to ensure security and historical accuracy while providing 

personalized and accessible tours for constituents. 

Two days after the hearing, the Committee was referred 

H. Res. 815, a resolution with 74 co-sponsors in favor of 

preserving staff -led tours. On December 11, 2008, the Senate agreed to a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 107, also 

expressing support for Member and staff -led tours. No further action was taken on either measure, but legislative branch 

appropriations acts since FY2008 have contained language 

affi rming the use of staff -led tours.789

In the weeks leading up to the opening of the CVC on 

December 2, 2008, the Committee issued a number of “Dear 

Colleague” letters to inform Members and staff of opportunities to visit and learn about the new facility and eff orts to 

improve the scheduling of Capitol tours through the CVC’s 

Advance Reservation System.790

Th e Committee has since worked with CVC staff on 

special exhibits and tours, including those related to “Congress and the Civil War,” as well as the production of an 

online orientation video.

The Committee has also helped to ensure access for 

all visitors. CVC modifi cations include the widening of the 

Orientation Th eater doors to eliminate an accessibility barrier for oversize wheelchairs, strollers and scooters, and a new 

life-cycle program for the assisted-listening devices available 

for tours. Th e Committee also meets regularly with staff from 

the Offi ce of Congressional Accessibility Services to discuss 

further improvements. 

Eff orts to Acknowledge the Use of Slave Labor to 

Construct the Capitol

Along with the House Appropriations and Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committees, the Committee on House 

Administration also has examined ways to recognize the use 

of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol in the new 

Capitol Visitor Center. Th e Committee held a hearing on 

November 7, 2007, during which they heard recommendations from members of the Slave Labor Task Force and from 

other historians and officials.791 These recommendations 

included the renaming of the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center “Emancipation Hall,” as well as the inclusion of 

additional educational information such as commemorative 

plaques and brochures. 

A bill to rename the hall, H.R. 3315, was also introduced 

and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and similar language was included in the Housepassed version of H.R. 2771, the FY2008 Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act. H.R. 3315 was passed by the House, 

and the Senate, after passing its own Emancipation Hall bill 

(S. 1679), agreed to the House bill by unanimous consent on 

December 6. President George W. Bush signed the bill into 

law on December 18.792

On June 12, 2009, the Committee on House Administration favorably reported H. Con. Res. 135, which directed 

the Architect to place a marker in Emancipation Hall 

acknowledging the role that slave labor played in the construction of the Capitol. Th e report stated that, in developing 

the marker, the Architect was to “consider the recommendations of the Slave Labor Task Force Working Group; ensure 

that the marker includes stone quarried by slaves in the construction of the Capitol to the greatest extent possible; and 

ensure that the marker includes a plaque or inscription that 

describes the purpose of the marker.”793 On July 7, 2009, the 

House agreed to H. Con. Res. 135 under suspension of the 

rules. It was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent 

on July 10.794

On February 28, 2011, Chairman Lungren approved 

a design which “features a bronze plaque mounted above a 

block of sandstone that was quarried by slaves and originally 

part of the Capitol’s East Front,” and a location on the “western end of the northern wall of Emancipation Hall.”795

On February 9, 2012, H. Con. Res. 99 was introduced 

by Representative John Lewis and agreed to by unanimous 

consent, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall to unveil 

this marker on February 28, 2012. The House agreed to 

the resolution on February 9, with the Senate following on 

February 15, 2012. 
252 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Other Statues and Engravings

Th e CVC houses 24 statues from the National Statuary Hall 

Collection as well as other works of art.796 Th rough its participation in the Joint Committee on the Library, which 

approved a plan for relocating statues to locations in the CVC 

on July 31, 2008, the Committee helped shape the look of 

this new facility. 

Subsequently, on June 12, 2009, the Committee favorably reported H. Con. Res. 131, which directed the Architect to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the 

National Motto of “In God We Trust” in the CVC. The 

resolution, the committee report stated, “fulfi ll[ed] a commitment made by the Committee during the 110th Congress 

to recommend adding an engraved inscription of the motto, 

which is set forth in 36 U.S.C. § 302, and the Pledge, which 

is set forth in 4 U.S.C. § 4, in the CVC.” On July 7, 2009, the 

House agreed to H. Con. Res. 131 under suspension of the 

rules. It was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent 

on July 10. 

House Restaurant System

Origin and Development

Food service in the Capitol dates back to the early years of the 

Capitol when a small bar was located in the crypt beneath the 

Capitol Rotunda. Later, a tiny room near the old Supreme 

Court and Senate Chamber was set aside as an eating place, 

known as “a hole in the wall.” After the Senate and House 

wings were completed, restaurants were authorized to be 

operated in both.797

By 1828, prepared food was available in the Capitol for 

Members of both houses. “Rules and Regulations” signed 

by Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and 

House Speaker Andrew Stevenson of Virginia, directed the 

Commissioner of Public Buildings:

not [to] permit refreshments to be sold in any part 

of the [Capitol] building or its appendages except 

in the rooms on the ground fl oor appropriated to 

that purpose. Th ese rooms [are] to be opened on 

days when Congress are sitting only, and to be 

closed on each day as soon after adjournment of 

both Houses as may be practicable. Bills of rate are 

to be made out by the restaurateurs and after being 

approved by you to be printed and kept posted up 

in each room.798

In the middle of the 19th Century, a separate House 

dining room was established.799 Records also indicate that 

“the restaurant was established for the use and convenience 

of Members of the House of Representatives . . . and not [as] 

a public restaurant nor was it intended by the House that it 

should be operated as such.”800

Th e Speaker of the House apparently maintained overall 

supervision of the House facilities until 1875, and again from 

1904 to 1921, by appointing the manager.801 It is unclear 

whether any House committee exercised jurisdiction over the 

restaurant prior to the Committee on Revisal and Unfi nished 

Business, which was authorized to do so in 1867.802 In 1869, 

the supervision of the restaurant, which continued to be 

privately operated for profi t, was transferred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds when the Committee 

on Revisal and Unfi nished Business was dissolved.803 Th e 

Committee on House Administration, and its predecessor, 

the Committee on Accounts, have had jurisdiction over and 

been involved in the operation of the restaurant system in the 

House of Representatives since at least 1904.

On April 2, 1904, the House authorized the Committee 

on Accounts to look into the “desirability and feasibility of 

conducting the restaurant of the House of Representatives by 

other business methods than those in vogue.” Near the end of 

April, the Committee on Accounts reported “that the House 

restaurant [had] not been conducted satisfactorily either to 

its patrons or its manager.” Th e manager had lost considerable money, and as a consequence there had been a “marked 

deterioration in service and quality of food,” and “noticeable decline in patronage during the current Congress.” 

Th e Committee recommended adoption of a less “elaborate 

bill of fare,” and a “simpler plan of luncheon rooms, such 

as are found in the business centers of our large cities.” Th e 

full House concurred with the recommendations later the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 253

same day.804 Shortly thereafter, the Committee on Accounts 

became involved in the operations of the House restaurant, 

but not until June 1921 were all matters relating to the facility 

offi cially transferred to the Committee.805

From 1921 until 1940, the restaurants functioned under 

the control of the Committee on Accounts, and its chairman 

made and enforced the rules for management of the House 

restaurant.806 Between 1940 and 1971, the Architect of the 

Capitol assumed management and direction of the House 

restaurant system, subject to the authority of the House.807

Role of Committee

Th e Committee on Accounts retained oversight jurisdiction 

over the House restaurant system until January 1947, when 

it was abolished by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946, and its oversight responsibilities were assumed by the 

Committee on House Administration.808 Th e Architect of 

the Capitol continued, under the oversight of the new Committee, to be responsible for the management of the House 

restaurant. Th e Architect also subsequently managed the cafeteria in the Longworth House Offi ce Building, which began 

operation in 1942; the cafeteria, known as the Congressional 

Coff ee Shop, which opened in February 1947; the Members’ 

private dining room in the Capitol, which opened in March 

1947; and the Rayburn Cafeteria, which opened in 1965. 

1954 House Food Facilities Survey. Initially, the Committee had to deal with relatively routine matters related to 

House food facilities; but in 1954 a resolution was off ered 

by Clare Eugene Hoff man of Michigan which called for a 

survey of food service facilities in the House. Th e purpose of 

the survey, Hoff man explained in introducing H. Res. 692 

(83rd Congress, 1953–1954), was “to provide adequate facilities so that the Members of the House, their constituents, 

and perhaps legislative employees, could be properly served 

the food for which it was necessary they must have if they are 

to perform their daily tasks.” Hoff man went on to say that:

Few people realize that meeting at 12 noon, as 

the House usually does, and continuing in session 

until late in the afternoon and sometimes late in 

the evening, members have no place where they can 

conveniently obtain either a lunch or a meal other 

than in the Capitol Building. A stranger viewing 

the situation might conclude that it was the intention of those who control the situation to require 

Congress to bring a lunch in a paper sack, their 

drink in a thermos bottle.809

Th e survey undertaken by Nationwide Food Service, 

Inc., of Chicago, was completed early in December 1954. 

Nationwide recommended that “a dining facility with 

sufficient seating to accommodate the Members of both 

Houses . . . be considered.” First, however, the “Architect 

of the Capitol [needed to] make a survey in order to locate 

suffi cient area which may necessarily have to be in the form 

of an addition, before any food service planning is done.”810

Special Restaurant Subcommittee Provides Motivation for East Front Extension. At the outset of the 84th

Congress (1955–1956), the Committee established a Special 

Subcommittee on the House Restaurant. It existed for only 

one Congress, and was set up to assist the Committee in 

studying the shortage of restaurant space. Ultimately, this 

shortage proved to be a motivating factor for the Committee on House Administration introducing, and the House 

approving, a resolution calling for the long-proposed extension of the East Front of the Capitol.811

In February 1955, John Lesinski, Chairman of the Special Subcommittee, solicited suggestions from his House colleagues “as to improvements or changes that could be made 

to improve service” in the House dining facilities. More than 

60 Members responded. Th e most infl uential of those who 

replied apparently was Walter Horan of Washington, who 

suggested that the “subcommittee look into the possibility 

of completing the construction of the Capitol. Th is would 

mean the building of what is known as the eastern front of 

the Capitol. Th is construction would provide a considerable 

space, part of which could be actually planned for a truly 

modern restaurant service.” Subsequently, on March 1, 1955, 

the Subcommittee, after discussing various possibilities for 

fi nding additional space, concluded that the “most feasible 
254 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

suggestion appeared to be the idea to complete construction 

of the East side of the Capitol.”812

Within two months, the Committee reported two 

related bills—H. Res. 218 and H. Res. 219 (84th Congress, 

1955–1956). In its report on H. Res. 218, the Committee 

unanimously approved Subcommittee Chairman Lesinski’s 

recommendation that “additional space was the only practical solution to the problem of providing adequate dining 

facilities for Members and employees of the House.” In 

order to obtain the needed additional space, the Committee 

recommended completion of the East Front of the Capitol, 

which had been discussed since 1863. Th e second report, 

on H. Res. 219, called “for the extension of the cafeteria 

in the New House Offi ce Building northward to include 

rooms . . . occupied by the beauty shop and the House offi ce 

Buildings Superintendent,”813 which would be relocated. 

Both resolutions were approved by the House on April 21, 

1955. That August, Congress authorized the “Architect 

of the Capitol under the direction of a Commission for 

Extension of the United States Capitol . . . to provide for the 

extension, reconstruction, and replacement of the central 

portion of the United States Capitol,” and appropriated $5 

million for the project.814

As a consequence of these actions, Committee on House 

Administration Chairman Omar Burleson of Texas was able 

to include in his report of the Committee’s activities in 1955 

the following paragraph:

One of the most important pieces reported by 

the Committee . . . was the recommendation for 

expanding the facilities of the House Restaurant. 

Th e committee’s report to the House resulted in 

action of both the House and Senate in recommending completion of the east front of the Capitol 

in accordance with the architectural plans which 

had been approved many years before. When completed the addition to the Capitol will include ample 

restaurant facilities for Members and employees of 

both Senate and House.”815

Actual construction of the east front extension was 

begun in 1958. It involved the construction of a new east 

front 32 feet 6 inches east of the old front, faithfully reproducing the sandstone structure in marble. Ninety new rooms 

were created by the extension, which was completed in 1962, 

including two new dining rooms for Members of the House 

and Senate, respectively.816

Select Committee Created to Supervise Management 

of Restaurants. Faced with fi nancial losses in the House 

restaurant system, Committee Chairman Wayne Hays of 

Ohio, in January 1969 introduced H. Res. 71 (91st Congress, 

1969–1970), which called for the termination of the management of the House restaurant and the cafeteria by the Architect of the Capitol and transfer of that responsibility to the 

Committee.817 Th e measure was referred to the Committee, 

but it took no action on the resolution.

Instead, the House that July adopted H. Res. 472 (91st

Congress), which was sponsored by Ray Madden of Indiana. 

H. Res. 472 created a Select Committee on the House Restaurant to supervise the Architect of the Capitol in the management of the House food facilities, subject to oversight and 

policy direction by the Committee on House Administration. 

Th e resolution, eff ective only for the 91st Congress, stipulated 

that management of the House Restaurant would continue 

under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol, subject to 

the direction of the new Select Committee.818 Th at November, the Subcommittee on Accounts held two days of hearings 

on measures (H. Res. 493 and H. Res. 494) to provide collective bargaining rights for House food service employees. No 

further action was taken on either resolution.819

During the 92nd Congress (1971–1972), new allegations of 

mismanagement of the House restaurant system led Chairman 

Hays to propose continuation of the Select Committee on the 

House Restaurant. H. Res. 317, which was cosponsored by 

John Kluczynski of Illinois, Chairman of the Select Committee, was adopted on March 25, 1971. It authorized the Select 

Committee to “exercise direction and immediate management and operation of the House Restaurant and cafeteria and 

other food facilities of the House of Representatives, subject to 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 255

the authority of the Committee on House Administration.” 

Th e resolution directed the Architect to transfer all accounts, 

records, supplies, and assets of the food facilities to the Committee on House Administration. Th is change acknowledged 

the capability of the Committee to more closely audit the various accounts of the House restaurant and cafeteria facilities. 

Committee members noted in the debate that the move would 

save the House money because the Committee had suffi cient 

auditors to supervise the restaurant accounts, and auditing 

staff of the Architect’s offi ce would be reduced or eliminated.820

Chairman Hays left the day-to-day operations in the hands of 

the Select Committee on the House Restaurant, and gave it 

the authority to replace personnel.821

Th e following Congress, the Subcommittee on Accounts 

considered resolutions for the funding of the Select Committee on the House Restaurant, which was reestablished in February 1973 for the 93rd Congress (1973–1974).822 In favorably 

reporting the Select Committee’s funding request a month 

later, the Committee on House Administration indicated that 

the Select Committee had made considerable progress during 

the previous year “in reducing the House food service operating defi cit, while at the same time improving the food and 

service. With the innovation of modern service techniques, 

greater effi ciency in the food service operation was initiated 

with the installation of modern kitchen preparation and 

service equipment throughout the facilities.” Other accomplishments included the introduction of a fast food carry-out 

facility in the Longworth House Offi ce Building, considerable redecorating to improve the interiors of the House 

Restaurant and Speaker’s Dining Room, computerization of 

the restaurant bookkeeping system, and signifi cant progress 

in on-the-job training.823

In 1974, during floor consideration of funds for the 

Select Committee, Frank Th ompson, Jr., of New Jersey, a 

member of the Committee on House Administration, told 

his House colleagues that a majority of the Committee had 

expressed its intent not to approve any funds for Select Committee in the 94th Congress. William L. Dickinson of Alabama, also a member of the Committee, further emphasized 

the Select Committee had “done a good job, but we think 

its existence has run its full course.” Another member of 

the Committee, Frank Annunzio of Illinois, however, took 

exception with his colleagues remarks reminding them that 

it was the Speaker who had the authority to terminate the 

Select Committee on the House Restaurant.824 Instead of 

reauthorizing the Select Committee, the House adopted the 

recommendations of the 1974 House Select Committee on 

Committees and added to the jurisdiction of the Committee 

on House Administration, management and administration 

of the House Restaurant.825

A year later, in 1975, the Committee established an Ad 

Hoc Restaurant Subcommittee to provide direct supervision 

over the House restaurant facilities. And in July of that year, 

the Subcommittee held an informal discussion on the House 

restaurant employees, but no formal witnesses appeared.826

Subcommittee on Services. Following the 93rd Congress, management of the House restaurants was returned to 

the Committee on House Administration at the recommendation of the House Select Committee on Committees.827

To manage its new responsibility over the House restaurants, 

the Committee on House Administration created an Ad 

Hoc Restaurant Subcommittee during the 94th Congress 

(1975–1976).828 In the 95th Congress (1977–1978), the committee transferred the supervision of the House restaurants 

to the Subcommittee on Services.829

During this time, the panel exerted increasing infl uence in the day-to-day operations, eventually making all 

administrative decisions. In 1979, the Subcommittee on 

Services, following a July 24 hearing, “voted to instruct the 

Architect of the Capitol to develop detailed plans and fi nancial analysis for the renovation of the Longworth Cafeteria 

dining area,” and instructed the “Subcommittee and full 

Committee staff s to advance a study to develop more space 

in the House Restaurant System.”830

Th rough a series of meetings the Services Subcommittee 

continued its review of the House restaurant system in the 

97th Congress (1981–1982). At a February 18, 1981 meeting, 

the Subcommittee reviewed the restaurant equipment budget. 
256 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

On May 19, the subcommittee discussed four matters: options 

under which the Members’ Private Dining Room might be 

reopened; a report by House Information Service describing 

how the Restaurant System could promote more eff ective use 

of equipment; a proposal to remodel the Rayburn Carryout; 

and the possible purchase of a Regethermic Food System.831

In July, the Subcommittee again considered the purchase and 

installation of the Regethermic Food System for the Rayburn 

Cafeteria, and decided that this piece of equipment would be 

benefi cial to the restaurant system. Th e Subcommittee also 

requested that the Architect of the Capitol render several plans 

to remodel the Rayburn Cafeteria, and asked the General 

Accounting Offi ce (GAO) to prepare a study on the Restaurant 

System Wage Scale. In November, the Subcommittee dealt 

with the Members’ Private Dining Room and extension of 

hours of the Congressional Dining Room.832

In March 1982, the Subcommittee was provided with 

an update of all facilities under its jurisdiction. During that 

meeting, a new wage scale for the House Restaurant System 

was approved. Also, during the 97th Congress (1981-1982), 

the Subcommittee published the Catering Guide of the House 

Restaurant System, and oversaw the completion of the renovations to Rayburn Carryout and H-131 to provide additional 

catering capacity in the Capitol.833

In the 98th Congress (1983–1984), the Subcommittee’s 

primary activities included monitoring fi nancial records of all 

food service facilities on a regular basis, overseeing the renovation of the commissary area in HOB Annex II (the Ford Building), remodeling of the Longworth Carryout, completion of 

necessary repairs and equipment replacements, and enforcement of employment policies and regulations. In addition, 

the Catering Guide was revised and reissued, and the fi nancial 

status of the House restaurant system was reviewed.834

Privatization of the House Restaurants. In June 1986, 

Representative Frank Annunzio, chair of the Committee on 

House Administration, introduced a committee resolution to 

create an “ad hoc Food Service Task Force for the purpose of 

facilitating the letting of a contract for the provision of food 

services to the House of Representatives.”835 Th e ad hoc task 

force that was created, in accordance with committee rule 

16(b),836 was directed to work with the Architect of the Capitol to “carry out functions of the resolution and to report back 

to the full Committee thereafter.”837 Th e committee agreed 

to the resolution by unanimous voice vote.838

In an August 1986 report to the Committee, Representative Leon Panetta, chair of the ad hoc Food Service 

Task Force,839 “briefl y reviewed the task force’s eff ort to date 

regarding the letting of a contract for food services to the 

House of Representatives.” Representative Panetta “reported 

that a ‘Statement of Principles’ had been agreed upon by the 

Members of the Task Force which would direct the Architect’s 

Offi ce to incorporate the ‘Principles’ into the contract for 

restaurant services, and sets a fi xed timetable to report back 

to the Task Force of its progress.”840

In September 1986, Representative William Frenzel, 

acting in Representative Panetta’s absence, provided the 

committee with a status report “on the bidding process of 

a food service contract for the House of Representatives.”841

Th e bidding process was completed that November. At that 

time, the Architect of the Capitol, George White, provided 

the results of the bidding process to Representative Panetta. 

White reported that the Food Service Selection Panel (FSSP) 

had received bids from three companies, Greyhound Food 

Management Inc., APA Services Inc., and Service America 

Corporation.842 Th e FSSP reported that they asked for and 

received additional information and clarifi cation from Service 

America Corporation and concluded that Service America 

Corporation “ha[d] the experience, resources, and fi nances to 

manage and operate the House Restaurant System.”843 FSSP 

recommended to the ad hoc task force the consideration of 

Service America Corporation as the House Restaurant System 

(HRS) manager.844

House Restaurants Since 1986. Th e House has contracted with a total of four vendors to run the House Restaurant 

System (HRS) since privatization in 1986. Th ese vendors were 

Service America Corporation (December 1986–August 1991), 

Th ompson Hospitality Services and Marriott Management 

Services Corporation (July 1994–December 1997), Guest 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 257

Services (January 1998–December 2007), and Restaurant 

Associates (December 2007–present). Between August 1991 

and July 1994, the committee ran the House restaurants. 

Since signing the contract with Restaurant Associates in 

December 2007, the Committee has provided oversight over 

the contract and restaurant operations. In the 110th Congress 

(2007–2008), the committee supported the Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO) of the House exercising an option and 

entering into a food service contract with Restaurant Associates, the food service vendor selected by the Architect of the 

Capitol to run the cafeteria in the Capitol Visitor Center. As 

part of the Committee’s oversight of the Restaurant Associates’ contract, it ensured that employees were treated fairly 

during the transition between restaurant vendors.845 Review 

of the restaurant contract continues in the 112th Congress 

(2011–2012).846

Service America Corporation. Following the Architect of the Capitol’s recommendation of Service America 

Corporation as the House Restaurant System manager, the 

Architect on behalf of the committee negotiated a three-year 

contract with Service America Corporation. Th e contract 

provided that Service America Corporation would provide 

food and vending services for the House wing of the Capitol, 

the Rayburn Building, the Longworth Building, the Cannon 

Building, and House Offi ce Building Annex Number 2 (Ford 

House Offi ce Building) for three years. Th e contract also 

required Service America Corporation to pay a commission 

of one percent of gross profi t.847

On January 3, 1990, Service America Corporation’s initial contract with the House expired. Following a bid process 

by the Architect, the Committee on House Administration 

announced its earlier approval of a second three-year contract for Service America Corporation to operate the HRS, 

through 1993.848 Th e contract was subsequently terminated 

by mutual agreement on August 4, 1991.849

Committee on House Administration. In August 

1991, as a result of the termination of Service America Corporation’s contract, the Committee on House Administration 

assumed daily management and operation of House food 

services.850 At that time, the Committee was also dealing 

with press accounts revealing that several Members owed 

the House restaurant thousands of dollars in overdue bills. In 

response, the Committee discontinued the practice of allowing Members to sign for their meals, and instead required that 

they pay either in cash or with a credit card.851 

Th e Committee continued to manage the day-to-day 

aff airs of the HRS system through May 1993. In early May, 

the Committee began discussions to transfer HRS operations to the newly created Director of Non-Legislative and 

Financial Services. On June 1, 1993, the director assumed 

day-to-day control over the HRS.852 Th e Committee, however, continued to maintain oversight authority over the 

restaurants.853

Th ompson Hospitality and Marriott Management 

Services Corporation. Early in 1994, the Committee on 

House Administration agreed to a committee resolution 

authorizing the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial 

Services, General Leonard P. Wishart, to solicit bids for the 

operations of the HRS from outside vendors.854 After the 

bid process was completed, Th ompson Hospitality L.P. and 

Marriott Management Services Corporation were awarded a 

contract to jointly operate the HRS beginning in July 1994.855

In addition, the re-privatization of the HRS transferred restaurant employees from the House payroll to the private 

sector. Th e employee transfer aided the House in compliance 

with budget reductions and job cuts mandated in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1994.856 

Guest Services. In June 1997, the Committee on 

House Oversight857 reviewed a draft request for proposal 

(RFP)858 prepared by the Chief Administrative Offi cer of 

the House (CAO) following notifi cation by Th ompson Hospitality and Marriott Management Services Corporation of 

their intention to terminate the HRS food service contract 

at the end of 1997.859 Th e RFP was issued in August,860 with 

proposals due in October. On November 25, the Committee approved the CAO’s proposal for a food service contract862 and in December the Committee formally approved 

Guest Services as the new vendor.863
258 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Restaurant Associates. In 2005, the Architect of the 

Capitol (AOC) began the search process to choose a food 

service vendor for the Capitol Visitor Center, being constructed beneath the Capitol Plaza.864 As part of the search 

process, the House and the Senate were provided the option 

of contracting with the AOC’s vendor for House and Senate 

food services operations, respectively. In August 2007, the 

AOC chose Restaurant Associates of New York City as the 

offi cial food vendor for the Capitol Visitor Center. Following 

the Architect’s decision, the House independently contracted 

with Restaurant Associates to provide food service in the 

Longworth, Rayburn, and Cannon House Offi ce Buildings, 

the House wing of the Capitol, and the Members’ Dining 

Room.865 Th e contract went into eff ect in December 2007.

Conservation and Sustainability

Origins and Development

Conservation and sustainability efforts in the House of 

Representatives began in the 1980s with the creation of the 

House recycling program. In recent years, eff orts to conserve 

resources have expanded to other aspects of House operations. 

Th ese include management of the Capitol Power Plant, refi nement of the recycling program, the creation of a “Waste-toEnergy” initiative and other conservation programs.

Recycling

Th e fi rst proposals to create a House-wide recycling program 

were introduced in the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), when 10 

bills and resolutions were introduced in the House. Nine of 

these bills were referred to the Committee on House Administration and one was referred to the Committee on Government 

Operations.866 Th ese initial proposals focused on requiring the 

use of recycled paper to produce congressional documents. 

Establishing the House Recycling Program

In the 93rd–94th Congresses (1973–1976), an additional 16 

recycling bills were proposed. All but three were referred to the 

Committee.867 No action was taken on any of the measures.

On March 7, 1989, Representative William Green introduced a resolution which provided for a voluntary paper 

recycling program in the House, administered by the Architect of the Capitol. Representative Green’s resolution placed 

responsibility for the recycling in the House with the Architect of the Capitol and made it a voluntary program. H.Res. 

104 required the Architect of the Capitol to establish and 

implement a voluntary program for recycling paper that is 

disposed of in the operation of the House of Representative no 

later than six months after the bill became law. Th e recycling 

program was to be designed to encourage separation of paper 

by type at the sources of the generation (including offi ces of 

Members of the House) and to sell such paper for the purpose 

of recycling.868

H. Res. 104 was referred to the Committee on House 

Administration, where it was then referred to the Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing. On July 25, 1989, the 

Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Jim Bates, held a 

hearing on H. Res. 104.869 Th e hearing included testimony 

from the Offi ce of Technology Assessment, Architect of the 

Capitol, General Services Administration, a private sector 

waste management fi rm, and local governments with established recycling programs.870

As a result of the hearing, the Subcommittee supported 

the use of “source separation” techniques.871 Th e Committee in reporting H. Res. 104 argued that: “[s]ource separation makes sense both environmentally and economically. 

For example, the House currently receives $1 per ton for its 

recycled trash. Source separation would generate $80 per 

ton for Grade 1 paper and $40 per ton for Grade 2 paper.”872

On July 25, 1989 the Subcommittee recommended the 

approval of H. Res. 104 to the full Committee.873 On July 26, 

the full Committee agreed to the resolution and reported the 

measure favorably, without amendment. In its report, the Committee raised concern that dividing paper into as many as fi ve 

source separation categories could discourage staff and Member 

participation in the pilot program. As a result, the Committee 

encouraged “the Architect to consider a phased-in approach, 

beginning with the separation of Grade 1 and Grade 2 paper.”874

On August 1 during House fl oor debate on H. Res. 

104, Representative Bates stated that the resolution was the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 259

beginning of a larger recycling eff ort in the House. “Mr. 

Speaker, I think this is just the beginning of a much-needed 

recycling program here in the House of Representatives.875

H. Res. 104 was agreed to by voice vote later that day.876

Recycling Oversight

By virtue of its authority to oversee the Architect of the Capitol, the Committee has closely monitored the House recycling 

program.877 Th e Committee actively assisted the Architect 

in establishing the pilot recycling program and implementing general changes to the program. Th e following are the 

recycling activities the Committee on House Administration 

has undertaken.

Following the passage of H. Res. 104 (101st Congress), 

which established voluntary House recycling, the Committee 

held a series of meetings with recycling experts from Prince 

George’s County Maryland, the General Services Administration, and San Diego County, California to solicit recommendations on establishing a recycling program. Th ese 

recommendations were provided to the Architect’s offi ce. Th e 

Committee also sent Member offi ces a “Dear Colleague” letter questionnaire on the recycling program and held a forum 

for the Offi ce Waste Recycling Pilot Program.878 On July 

17, 1993, the Committee issued a “Dear Colleague” letter 

to summarize the ongoing eff orts of the recycling program 

and the impact of the Offi ce Waste Recycling Program on 

recycling eff orts in the House.879

In May, June, and August 1998, the Committee met 

with the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, and the 

House Superintendent to discuss the recycling program. 

According to the Committee’s activity report, in each 

instance the discussion dealt with unspecifi ed proposed 

improvements.880

In the 110th Congress (2007–2008), the Committee 

“further supervised other greening measures by the Architect, 

including expansion of the House recycling services.”881

Currently, the House of Representatives recycles a number of products including paper, cans, bottles, and toner cartridges. In December 2007, the House also began to compost 

food waste, sugar cane-based food and beverage containers, 

and corn-based plastic forks, spoons, and knives used in the 

House restaurants.882

Renewable Resources Programs Management 

Implementation of renewable resource programs in the House 

is divided between the Architect of the Capitol and the House 

Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO). Oversight of most of 

these projects is conducted by the Committee on House 

Administration.

Creation and Operation

In the 110th Congress (2007–2008), the Committee was 

involved in several initiatives to promote the wise use of 

resources. In March 2007, Committee Chairwoman, Juanita Millender-McDonald, joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in signing a letter asking the 

Chief Administrative Offi cer to undertake an initiative to 

ensure that the House instituted the most up-to-date industry and government standards for green building and green 

operating procedures.”883 Th e letter also asked that the CAO 

provide a preliminary report by April 30, 2007, and a fi nal 

report, with recommendations, by June 30, 2007.

Subsequently, the CAO conducted a study to understand 

“House operating procedures with respect to energy conservation, sustainability and related matters.”884 Th e results of 

the study were presented to the House in two reports and 

became the “Green the Capitol” initiative.885 In announcing 

the release of the fi nal report, Speaker Pelosi summarized the 

initiative and its importance: “Th is plan is an essential fi rst 

step, because it not only will make the House a better place 

to work and live near, but it will also make our institution a 

model—one that cares about what kind of planet our children will inherit.”886

Some of the program elements executed by the CAO 

included initiating a study to relight the Capitol Building 

Dome, purchasing carbon credits on the Chicago Climate 

Exchange, holding an Expo to highlight alternative forms of 

transportation and initiating a car sharing program, serving 

“fair trade” coff ee in House food service venues, and composting food and material waste from the House cafeteria. 
260 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Additional energy and cost-saving initiatives executed 

by the Architect of the Capitol included: 

• switching to compact fl uorescent light bulbs;

• phasing out the use of coal in the Capitol Power Plant;

• purchasing wind power;

• using green cleaning supplies; and,

• recycling offi ce supplies during the transition to the 111th

Congress.

Waste-to-Energy Program

In the 112th Congress (2011–2012), the House instituted 

additional eff orts to reduce energy consumption and waste. 

On January 25, 2011, Committee Chairman Dan Lungren 

announced that the House composting program had been 

suspended after a review of the program conducted by the 

House Inspector General and the Architect of the Capitol 

proved the program to be costly and ineff ective. In the press 

release announcing the suspension, Lungren explained that 

the program, which cost an estimated $475,000 annually, 

actually increased the House’s energy consumption and 

yielded nominal reductions in carbon emissions equivalent 

to removing only one car from the road each year.887

In August 2011, the Committee directed the Architect of 

the Capitol’s Offi ce of Energy and Sustainability to take over 

and expand the sustainability eff orts previously conducted 

by the CAO. Two months later, the Committee directed 

the AOC to enter into a new waste removal contract which 

would result in the burning of non-recyclable solid waste to 

generate heat, and in turn, produce steam and electricity. Th e 

goal of the program was to create usable energy from items 

which would otherwise simply be placed in landfi lls. Th e 

new initiative was designed to complement the AOC’s existing recycling programs. Th e new Waste-to-Energy contract 

diverted “up to 90 percent of the Capitol Complex’s nonrecyclable solid waste from landfi lls through the utilization 

of local waste-to-energy facilities.” At the time of its signing, 

the contract was expected to “save taxpayers approximately 

$60,000 annually.”888

A one-year review of the Waste-to-Energy program 

released in September 2012 showed that the initiative had 

successfully diverted approximately 5,000 tons of solid waste 

from local landfi lls and resulted in environmental benefi ts 

equating to the removal of 890 cars from the road annually. 

Capitol Power Plant

Since 1909, the Capitol Power Plant, which is located four 

blocks from the Capitol building has provided steam and 

chilled water to the Capitol Complex. Th e Capitol Power 

Plant provides steam to 28 Capitol Hill facilities; chilled 

water, to 23. Th e plant site consists of a main plant (built in 

1909), the East Refrigeration Plant (built in 1938), an operations building (built in 1978), the West Refrigeration Plant 

(built in 1978 and expanded in 2007), and a coal yard (transferred from the General Services Administration in 1987). 

Th e plant’s seven boilers burn either natural gas, low-sulfur 

coal, or fuel oil to generate the steam used to heat Capitol 

complex offi ce buildings. Th e Capitol Power Plant transports 

steam and chilled water to the buildings it serves by means of 

utility tunnels built between 1908 and 1955.

Most of the modifications and improvements to the 

plant have been handled by the House Committee on Public 

Works—now the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure. In the 108th Congress (2003–2004), however, the Committee on House Administration authorized 

the House Inspector General to study and report on the fi re 

protection system of the Capitol Power Plant.889 

House Parking

When the House meets to conduct business, 435 Members, 

four delegates, one Resident Commissioner, and just over 

10,500 employees890 descend upon the House side of the U.S. 

Capitol Complex. Th ey are joined by countless tourists, journalists, lobbyists, and other visitors. When nearby residential 

neighborhoods, other government entities, and the expanse 

of the National Mall to the west of the Capitol Complex, are 

considered it is easy to see how parking is a constant cause 

for concern. Th e problem of how best to solve the shortage of 

parking is not a new one. 

Members were fi rst issued tags permitting them parking 

privileges around the District of Columbia while on offi cial 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 261

business in 1931.891 Th ese tags, alone, however, did not resolve 

the issue. More than a half-century ago, Paul F. Schenck of 

Ohio, and other members of a Special Subcommittee on 

Parking appointed by House Administration Chairman 

Karl M. Le Compte, conducted a thorough review of parking needs on Capitol Hill and concluded that “the task of 

pleasing every individual is practically impossible under the 

circumstances. Nevertheless, we have sought a workable plan 

that will improve a chaotic situation to the maximum extent 

within the physical limitations that we face.”892 Th eir lengthy 

letter to the Chairman included an analysis of all spaces 

available for Members, the press, and visitors, as well as a 

plan to eliminate unauthorized individuals from using spaces 

and a proposal for new space designations and construction. 

Other documents available in the National Archives for this 

Congress show that the Committee considered the roles of 

the diff erent offi ces in coordinating and enforcing parking 

policy and concerns from local citizens who might have been 

aff ected by any changes. 

During the ensuing fi ve decades, the Committee has 

revisited this issue to accommodate the changing needs of 

Members and staff . It has also responded to new proposals 

and developments, including encouraging fuel conservation 

and the use of mass transit as well as responding to increased 

security and access concerns.

Jurisdictional History

For much of its existence, the Committee has infl uenced 

parking issues on the House side of the Capitol. A Special 

Subcommittee on Parking was authorized by the full committee in the 84th through the 88th Congresses (1955–1964). 

Subcommittee records indicate the overlapping jurisdictional 

and operational responsibilities at that time: “the Architect 

of the Capitol [controlled] parking areas contained inside 

the Cannon and Rayburn Offi ce Building, the House Offi ce 

Building Commission [controlled] surface areas in the parking lots and curb side areas, with the administration of the 

parking program generally in the hands of the House Sergeant at Arms. Th e Subcommittee on Parking [set] the overall basic policy and [considered] any legislation pertaining to 

parking matters. Th e Subcommittee so [sic] [set] space quotas 

for Congressional Offi ces and [reviewed] situations which 

[could not] be resolved by the Sergeant at Arms.”893

On June 28, 1967, the House adopted H. Res. 514 (90th

Congress), which created the Select Committee to Regulate Parking on the House Side of the Capitol. Th e resolution, which was not referred to the Committee on House 

Administration, authorized the three members of the Select 

Committee to exercise direction over the Sergeant at Arms 

in the assignment of outdoor parking spaces. Th e resolution 

also authorized the House Offi ce Building Commission to 

delegate its responsibility for supervising the Architect of the 

Capitol in his assignment duties for spaces inside the House 

garages to the Select Committee. Speaking in support of the 

resolution, B.F. Sisk of California noted that it had gained the 

approval of both the House Offi ce Building Commission and 

the Speaker. After adoption of the resolution, Sisk, Wayne 

Hays of Ohio, and Harold Gross of Iowa were appointed 

to the Select Committee. A similar resolution was agreed to 

during the subsequent three Congresses.894

Th e Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 

988, 93rd Congress), altered this arrangement, returning 

jurisdiction over parking and other services to the Committee on House Administration. Agreed to on October 8, 

1974, the change was eff ective at the beginning of the 94th

Congress (1975–1976). H. Res. 208 (94th Congress), agreed 

to on February 24, 1975 and introduced by Wayne Hays, 

gave the Chairman of the Committee additional authority 

to “to lease or to otherwise provide additional indoor and 

outdoor parking facilities for employees of the House of Representatives in an area or areas in the District of Columbia 

outside but adjacent to the limits of the United States Capitol 

Grounds.”895 Hays explained that the resolution would allow 

the Committee to place a bid for parking space then available 

near the Rayburn Building.896 Th e FY1976 legislative branch 

appropriations act made this resolution permanent. Th at act 

also solidifi ed the Committee’s authority over parking in 

general, stating that “no part of the funds appropriated in 

this Act shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
262 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

vehicles except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 

be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 

for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee 

on House Administration.”897 A similar provision, which now 

additionally refers to Senate parking regulations developed 

by the Committee on Rules and Administration, continues 

to be provided for in the annual legislative branch appropriations acts.898

During the 94th Congress (1975–1976), parking issues 

were referred to Subcommittee on Parking except for the 

coordination of the Capitol Hill Employees Carpool Program, which was handled by the Subcommittee on Personnel 

and Police, which also dealt with matters pertaining to staff 

of the House Offi cers. Beginning with the 95th Congress, 

responsibility for regular parking issues was subsequently 

transferred to a consolidated Subcommittee on Services, 

which also oversaw the House restaurants, barber and beauty 

shops, and other services. Th is subcommittee existed through 

the 99th Congress, after which parking issues were addressed 

by the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, until its 

abolishment after the 103rd Congress. Th ese issues are now 

addressed by the full committee.

Developments, Legislation and Activities

Upon regaining jurisdiction over parking issues, the Committee on House Administration created a Subcommittee on 

Parking. During its fi rst Congress, the Subcommittee held 

two hearings, on June 25, 1975, and September 22, 1976. 

Superintendent of House Garages Mike Preloh testifi ed on 

both occasions.899 Th e fi rst hearing focused on parking in the 

Rayburn House Offi ce Building and at the F.B.I. lot. Th e second dealt with the allocation of spaces for the next Congress. 

Th e issues of space allocation, lot improvements and 

availability, which the Committee examined during this initial Congress, were repeatedly revisited over the next several 

decades. For example, the Subcommittee on Services studied 

a plan to open a new lot and close an older one during the 

97th Congress (1981–1982).900 When another lot was closed 

in 1989 to allow for repairs to an overpass on the SoutheastSouthwest freeway, the Subcommittee on Personnel and 

Police worked with the Architect of the Capitol to reorganize 

the remaining lots so that they could accommodate more 

vehicles and accommodate displaced parkers.901 In 1995, 

the Committee worked to lower parking costs and make 

additional space available for public use.902 Th e Committee 

also monitored renovations of the Cannon garage during the 

107th Congress (2001–2002) and the East and West House 

Underground Garages in the 112th Congress (2011–2012). 

Th e Committee has regularly considered amendments to 

the House parking policy, including resolutions adopted on 

January 27, 2009, and on January 25, 2011.903 Th roughout 

this time, the Committee reviewed additional regulations 

and space allocations and answered questions from Members 

and staff . 

Passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 instituted a signifi cant change in parking fee policy.904 Th is act reevaluated 

two fringe benefi ts off ered by employers: the market value of 

employer- provided parking and mass transit benefi ts. Prior 

to the act’s passage, direct parking benefi ts were completely 

excluded from taxation, while a limit was imposed on the 

amount of mass transit subsidies an employee could receive 

tax free. Th e 1992 act altered this balance by raising the limit 

of maximum allowed tax-exempt mass transit benefi ts, while 

imposing a limit on the parking subsidy an employee could 

receive free of tax. Th e House parking policy was revised to 

include a provision indicating that persons with reserved 

indoor spaces would incur additional taxable income as a 

working condition fringe benefi t.

A few of the House Inspector General’s initial reports 

related to streamlining various aspects of congressional operating activities, including the parking process. Th e Offi ce of 

the Inspector General (IG) was fi rst established in the 103rd 

Congress (1993–1994), gaining the authority to conduct additional audits that had previously been the responsibility of the 

Government Accountability Offi ce (then General Accounting Offi ce) during the 104th Congress (1995–1996).905 Jointly 

appointed by the Speaker, Majority Leader, and the Minority 

Leader, the IG is subject to the policy direction and oversight 

of the Committee.906
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 263

On May 23, 1995, the Committee agreed to transfer 

operational and fi nancial responsibility for parking from the 

Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO) to the Sergeant at Arms. 

Supervision of parking personnel was transferred from the 

Architect to the Sergeant at Arms during the previous Congress.907 Th e IG worked with the Sergeant at Arms to continue 

an initiative developed by the CAO, and approved by the 

Committee, to ensure a uniform parking permit distribution 

process and prevent the issuance of multiple permits to one 

individual. Th e IG also examined the duties, hours worked, 

and benefi ts off ered to garage personnel in a report issued July 

18, 1995. Th e IG continued to examine the eff ectiveness of 

House parking operations and the disbursement of permits, 

issuing additional reports and recommendations on February 

13, 1997, and February 8, 2002.

As part of its oversight of parking issues, the Committee has also examined the security of the House garages. 

Th is has required the Committee to work with other committees and legislative offi cers with responsibilities in this 

area. For example, the Capitol Police, under the direction of 

the Capitol Police Board, is delegated responsibility for the 

security of the Capitol Complex.908 Th e design, installation, 

and maintenance of security systems around the Capitol is 

under the jurisdiction of the Board, subject to the direction 

of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration. Th e approval of the 

Architect of the Capitol is also required before any alteration 

of the Complex may be made. Changes also require funding 

from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.909 

In 1986, two subcommittees of the Committee held 

hearings on parking security procedures. Th e Subcommittee 

on Personnel and Police met on August 7 to discuss security 

arrangements for House buildings and garages, including 

the installation of hydraulic gates. On September 24, the 

Subcommittee on Services heard from both the Chief of the 

Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms concerning unauthorized parking on the Capitol Plaza. 

Upon the transfer of supervision of congressional parking 

employees from the Architect of the Capitol to the Sergeant 

at Arms, and amid heightened awareness of vulnerabilities 

after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building 

in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood established the Garages and Parking Security 

Offi ce.910 Employees of this offi ce were trained to assist the 

Capitol Police with vehicle, permit, and identifi cation checks, 

as well as enforcing rules and regulations established by the 

Committee.911

Th e Committee has since included an examination of 

the security of the House parking facilities in its general 

oversight plan. On September 10, 2002, the Committee 

held an oversight hearing on upgrades in security around 

the Capitol instituted after the terrorist attacks the previous 

year. In his introductory remarks, Chairman Robert Ney 

noted that the Committee had “been actively and consistently engaged in new security measures and the approval 

of the security-related devices installed in the Capitol buildings and the surrounding House offi ce building,” noting in 

particular that the “underground parking facilities in the 

House offi ce buildings, although convenient, pose some 

serious challenges.”912 The Committee also heard from 

various House offi cers, including Sergeant at Arms Wilson 

Livingood, who discussed measures his offi ce had taken to 

enhance vehicle security.913 In June 2004, the Committee 

authorized an additional Inspector General Report entitled, 

“Changes to House Garages and Parking Security Procedures Resulted in Signifi cant Improvements.”914

In April 2008, the Committee established an Alternate 

Ride Home Program for all House offices. The program 

authorized Members and all other employing authorities of 

the House to reimburse an employee for alternative transportation expenses when they were required to work unscheduled 

overtime, or report to work early or to stay late outside their 

regular work hours. To qualify, expenses incurred need to be 

used for a taxi, a bus, a train or Metro, a registered ridesharing 

program (carpools, van pools, etc.), or by means other than 

the employee’s vehicle for which a House parking permit 

was issued.915 
264 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House Barber Shop

Origins and Development

At least as early as 1876, Congress made space available in the 

Capitol Building for the operation of a barber shop for use 

by Members of the House.916 During this early period there 

were barber shops located in various locations in the Capitol. 

On December 3, 1880, the New York Times reported that a 

barber shop, which was located in “one the cloak rooms opening into the hall of the House” had caught on fi re during the 

previous evening. Although the contents of the room were 

destroyed, fortunately the room was shut up and its “walls 

and fl oor” were fi re-proof. Consequently, the fi re did not 

spread to the fl oor of the House. “No material damage was 

done” to the rest of the Capitol. Th e news account went on 

to say that there were two other House barber shops, “in the 

rooms known as retiring and coat rooms for Representatives 

occupying fully one-third of the space devoted to this class of 

rooms.”917 During the 19th century, House barbers charged for 

their services, but according to contemporary press accounts, 

Senators received “[f]ree shaves and haircuts.”918

In 1908, another barber shop was opened in the newlycompleted Cannon House Offi ce Building.919 Five years later, 

during fl oor consideration of the Legislative, Executive, and 

Judicial Appropriation bill for FY1915, the House adopted 

an amendment introduced by Representative Woodson P. 

Oglesby prohibiting use of House appropriations to pay most 

operational expenses of the two barber shops. Th e amendment, 

which was subsequently enacted into law, provided that: 

hereafter it shall be unlawful for the Clerk of the 

House to pay out of any moneys of the House of 

Representatives any bills for laundry, furniture, 

supplies, or utensils used in the barber shops of the 

House Office Building or the House side of the 

Capitol.920

Th ere were no signifi cant changes in the shops’ operations and supervision for the next several years. Th e barber 

shops operated with the support of the House, which paid the 

barbers’ salaries and associated expenses, such as utilities, and 

provided space for their operations. Jurisdiction responsibility for the shops continued, without interruption, to be the 

responsibility of the House Committee on Accounts. 

Role of Committee

When the new Committee on House Administration 

assumed most of the jurisdictions of the former Committee 

on Accounts, oversight of the barber shops became one of 

its many responsibilities. Th is jurisdiction resulted primarily as an extension of the Committee’s role in oversight of 

employees and activities of the Doorkeeper and the Architect 

of the Capitol (AOC). Th e Doorkeeper supervised the shops 

located in the House side of the Capitol and the Cannon 

House Offi ce Building, and paid those salaries and expenses 

from his offi ce budget. Th e Architect of the Capitol supervised a third shop, opened in the Longworth House Offi ce 

Building, the salaries and expenses of which were paid from 

his offi ce appropriation.921

Th e barber shop system operated without notable change 

from 1947 until the early 1970s, with one exception. “On July 

1, 1965, the House Offi ce Building Commission directed 

that all barbers be placed under the jurisdiction of the Doorkeeper,” who was authorized to pay the barbers directly from 

appropriations made available to him by the House.922 Th is 

shift did not aff ect the authority of the Committee on House 

Administration, which continued its oversight role. Management matters were primarily those involving personnel issues. 

Committee approval was required for new positions in the 

shops, elimination of existing positions, determination of 

salaries, reclassifi cation of positions, and decisions on all other 

aspects of employment by the House.923

Committee action in the 1970s resulted in two jurisdictional changes. First, in 1971, the Committee assigned 

oversight, review, and management duties to its Subcommittee on Accounts, pursuant to an agreement between 

the Committee and the Doorkeeper.924 Six years later, at 

the beginning of the 95th Congress (1977–1978), a reorganization of the Committee on House Administration 

resulted in the transfer of jurisdiction from the Subcommittee on Accounts to the newly created Subcommittee on 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 265

Services.925 Th roughout these jurisdictional changes within 

the Committee, the barbers remained on the payroll of the 

Doorkeeper.

Also, in 1974, at the Committee’s suggestion, the House 

Appropriations Committee adopted, the idea of establishing 

a “revolving fund to handle the receipts and disbursements 

of the House Barber Shops.” The fund was subsequently 

incorporated into the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

1975, which was signed into law on December 27, 1974. In 

establishing the House Barber Shops Revolving Fund, Congress stipulated that:

• “Th e amount on deposit in the suspense fund maintained by the Clerk of the House for the barber shop 

receipts of the eff ect date of this act shall constitute the 

capital of the fund;”

• “All moneys thereafter received by the House Barber 

Shops from fees for services or from any other sources 

shall be deposited in such fund;” and

• “moneys in such fund shall be available without fi scal 

year limitation for disbursement by the Clerk of the 

House of Representatives.”926

By 1977, the barbers were receiving not only their 

House salaries, but also commissions determined by the 

type of services provided. For example, for a $3.00 haircut, 

a barber received $1.25. In addition, the barbers received 

commissions from the Barber Shop Revolving Fund, which 

was fi nanced by income received from their clients. Th e 

commissions were calculated by the House Finance Offi ce. 

Before vouchers for the commissions could be issued, however, they had to be approved by the Committee, as well as 

the House Clerk.927

When jurisdiction over the shops was transferred to 

the Subcommittee on Services in 1977, it was automatically 

shared to some extent with the Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel and Police because of the latter’s oversight 

responsibility for House employees. During the next 10 years, 

the Subcommittee on Services appears to have assumed a 

more active oversight role by providing daily oversight and 

[review of] routine daily barber related problems,” maintaining necessary records “for factual accumulation of monthly 

receipts of all employees,”928 improving records keeping “to 

give better insight into production of each Barber,” and making “routine changes in “each Shop to better equip [the Subcommittee] to meet demands from customers.”929

Among its actions, the Subcommittee, on May 19, 1981, 

directed the Assistant House Clerk to meet with barbers to 

inform them of the Subcommittee’s request “that there be 

more uniformity in pricing.930 On June 28, 1983, the Subcommittee met to review the shops’ fi nancial records, and 

discuss a proposed unisex hair care facility in House Annex 

2, which was approved a year later.931 During 1985, Subcommittee made the decision to eliminate the Cannon barber 

shop, and move its personnel to a shop that had been opened 

in the Rayburn House Offi ce Building.932

When the Subcommittee on Services was abolished 

by the Committee in 1987, oversight was transferred to the 

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, which retained that 

authority until 1995, when the barber shop operation was 

privatized.

Privatization

Th e move to privatize the barber shops began soon after the 

1994 mid-term congressional elections. On January 4, 1995, 

the House approved H.Res. 6 (104th Congress), which, among 

other things, created the position of Chief Administrative 

Offi cer (CAO), who assumed the duties previously performed 

by the director of non-legislative and fi nancial services, and 

responsibility for managing the operations of other House 

administrative offi ces and support services. H. Res. 6, also 

redesignated the Committee on House Administration as 

the Committee on House Oversight.933

On May 23, 1995, the “Committee on House Oversight 

directed the CAO to issue, within 30 days, a request for 

proposals to contract out the House Barber Shop, “subject 

to review and approval of the Committee Chairman in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”934 Although 

the barber shop had taken in $50,600 in 1994, it lost an 

estimated $50,000.935 In August 1995, the CAO announced a 

management contract with Gino Morena Enterprises, which 
266 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

at the time operated 600 hair cutting establishments in the 

United States, many on military bases.936

A decade later, Congress established the House Services 

Revolving Fund in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act.937 Th e act creating the fund terminated three existing revolving funds—the House Barber Shops Revolving 

Fund,938 the House Beauty Shop Revolving Fund (which 

had been in existence since 1969), and the House Restaurant 

Revolving Fund—and transferred remaining deposits in 

those funds into the new fund.

Privatizing the barber shop refl ected a House decision 

to have the Committee’s role become one of oversight rather 

than administrative management, an approach that continued through the 112th Congress (2011–2012).939 Th e barber 

shop, even though privatized, continued within the Committee’s oversight authority, through required review and 

approval of contracts for services authorized by the Chief 

Administrative Offi ce, who serves as the contract authority.

House Beauty Shop

Origins and Development

Although the House established a barber shop in the early 

1800s, it did not approve a beauty shop until 1932.940 Created 

as a private corporation, the shop compensated its manager 

and other employees from fees that they charged their clients. 

Initially, the House apparently provided space for the shop 

without charge and paid the utilities from appropriations 

made available for House operations. Th e Committee on 

Accounts was responsible for its operations by virtue of its 

oversight role of House services, including employees. Public 

records indicate the Committee, while playing an active role 

in oversight, did not handle any signifi cant issues related 

to the beauty shop during the following 15 years, when the 

Committee ceased to exist in January 1947. 

Establishment of Select Committee on the Beauty Shop

When the Committee on House Administration assumed 

many of the duties of the former Committee on Accounts 

in 1947, it inherited general oversight of the beauty shop’s 

activities. Until late 1967, no signifi cant issues, or House 

concerns, arose regarding the shop. 

In 1967, however, general dissatisfaction with the beauty 

shop operation reportedly led Speaker John McCormack to 

appoint a two-person select committee to study the situation 

and propose needed improvements. Th ere is, however, no 

record of the appointment of the select committee either in 

the House Journal or Congressional Record.

941

On December 6, 1967, the House assumed ownership 

of the beauty shop, pursuant to H. Res. 1000 (90th Congress, 

1967–1968), which placed responsibility for the shop’s dayto-day operations with a newly-created Select Committee 

on the House Beauty Shop. Th e resolution, sponsored by 

Representative Martha W. Griffi ths, directed that:

Th e management of the House Beauty Shop and 

all matters connected therewith shall be under the 

direction of the Select Committee herein created 

and shall be operated under such rules and regulations as such Committee may prescribe for the operation and the employment of necessary assistance for 

the conduct of said Beauty Shop by such business 

methods as may produce the best results consistent 

with economical and modern management.942

H. Res. 1000 made $15,000 available from the House 

contingent fund for the purchase of equipment and supplies 

necessary to establish a new shop. Representative Griffi ths, 

speaking in support of the measure on the House floor, 

explained to Members, that “the $15,000 advanced to reestablish the House beauty shop will be in the course of the 

next year, barring unforeseen circumstances, be returned 

to the contingency fund, and it is my earnest hope that the 

next time you hear from the select committee, it will be for 

the pleasant task of returning money to the Treasury of the 

United States.”943 Upon House agreement to the provisions of 

H. Res. 1000, the Speaker appointed Representative Griffi ths 

as Chair of the new three-member Select Committee.944 Representatives Edith Green and Catherine May were the other 

two members appointed to the Committee. During the next 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 267

week, the “Select Committee hired a professional manager, 

purchased the necessary equipment and supplies,” and at 

7:00 am on Monday, December 11, the House Beauty Shop 

reopened in the basement of the Longworth House Offi ce 

Building.945 

With expiration of the Select Committee’s authority at 

the end of the 90th Congress (1967–1968), the House reauthorized it for the 91st Congress (1969–1970), by agreeing to 

H. Res. 258. 

Within a few months of the reauthorization contained 

in H. Res. 258, however, Chairman Griffi ths requested that 

the House Committee on Appropriations consider adding 

language to the pending FY1970 legislative branch appropriations bill establishing a permanent Select Committee, 

along with a fi nancial accountability system for beauty shop 

operations. Her proposal was accepted by the Appropriations 

Committee, which referred to her request, and the Committee’s concurrence, in its report on H.R. 13763: 

In connection with the House Beauty Shop, the 

Committee, at the request of the chairman of 

the select committee in charge, has included language in the bill to put the shop on a fi nancial 

accounting basis somewhat similar to that on 

which the House Recording Studio has been for 

many years.

Th e fi rst paragraph of the language would make permanent the select committee arrangement, but otherwise 

comports in all respects with H. Res. 258, of February 19, 

1969, re-creating the select committee and prescribing its 

duties. Other parts of the language establish a self-sustaining 

revolving fund into which all receipts are to be deposited and 

from which all disbursements are to be made; make the Clerk 

of the House the disbursing agency for the fund; require 

establishment of a system of accounts; provide for audits by 

the General Accounting Offi ce (GAO); and provide that any 

net profi t in the fund, after restoration of any capital impairment and equipment replacement, shall be transferred to the 

general fund of the Treasury.946

H.R. 13763 was signed into law by President Richard 

Nixon on December 12, 1969. In addition to establishing a 

permanent Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop, the 

provisions in the 1970 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act:

!established a self-sustaining House Beauty Shop Revolving Fund supported by fees that were charged clients and used 

by the House Clerk to disburse funds to meet all expenses 

of the Shop for the “care, maintenance, and operation of the 

Shop, procurement of supplies and equipment, and compensation of personnel;”

• required that an “adequate system of accounts for the 

revolving fund shall be maintained and fi nancial reports 

prepared on the basis of such accounts;”

• required that the “activities of the Shop be subject to 

audit by the General Accounting Offi ce at such times 

as the select committee may direct, and reports of such 

audits be furnished to the Speaker of the House, to the 

select committee, and the Clerk of the House;”

• required that the “net profi t established by the General 

Accounting Offi ce audit, after restoring any impairment 

of capital and providing for replacement of equipment, 

shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.”947

Jurisdiction Transfer to House Administration

In 1977, the House adopted language authorizing the transfer 

of all responsibility for beauty shop operations to the Committee on House Administration. Contained in H. Res. 315 

(95th Congress, 1977–1978), the transfer in eff ect eliminated 

the need to reauthorize the Select Committee. Support by 

the House for the transition responded primarily to those 

advocating improved employment conditions for the shop’s 

personnel by giving them the status of House employees. By 

placing shop employees on the House payroll, the House 

extended to them the same benefi ts already aff orded House 

employees, including the House barbers.

On May 10 and June 28, 1977, the Committee on House 

Administration’s Subcommittee on Services held hearings on 

H. Res. 315,948 and the full Committee reported the bill on 

October 26. Included in the Committee amendments was 

a requirement that Beauty Shop employees must be on the 
268 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House payroll for a minimum of fi ve years before they could 

be eligible to receive retirement benefi ts made available to 

other House employees. 

Seeking to further enhance oversight, the Committee 

required the General Accounting Offi ce (GAO) to conduct 

annual audits of the shop’s business activities, and semiannual 

reviews of prices charged, and to report their fi ndings to the 

Committee “along with any suggestions they fi nd pertinent.”949

House fl oor debate on H. Res. 315 dealt primarily with 

the need to address “allegations of discrimination on the 

‘Hill’” by ensuring that female employees in the House 

Beauty Shop receive the same income and benefi ts as the 

male employees of the House Barber Shop.950 Later that day, 

the House adopted H. Res. 315, which took eff ect January 

3, 1978.951

Role of Subcommittee on Services 

When the Committee on House Administration assumed 

responsibility for the beauty shop in 1978, its Subcommittee 

on Services began a consistent review of the shop’s operations, 

fi nances, renovations, pricing, and salaries. During the 96th

Congress (1979–1980), the Subcommittee reviewed records 

of employee receipts, managed a remodeling of the shop in 

1980, and acted to complete an update of equipment.952

During the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the Subcommittee on Services conducted routine oversight of shop activities 

in order to determine possible improvements in operations, 

and to study proposed renovations of the shop’s space. On 

March 16, 1982, the Subcommittee held a meeting to update 

its members on operations of the shop, and to consider proposed price increases, which were subsequently approved.953

Continuing it oversight in the 98th Congress (1983–1984), the 

Subcommittee met on June 28, 1983, to review and discuss 

the shop’s fi nancial status and management changes. Later, 

on May 23, 1984, the Subcommittee approved the transfer of 

$41,000 from the beauty shop revolving fund to the general 

U.S. Treasury pursuant to a GAO recommendation. On June 

28, 1984, it approved a motion to proceed with a unisex hair 

salon in House Offi ce Building Annex 2.954 During the 99th 

Congress (1985–1986), Subcommittee staff reviewed the 

shop’s fi nancial records on a regular basis, and continued to 

discuss possible improvements and expansion.955

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police Assumes 

Jurisdiction

When the Subcommittee on Services was abolished by the 

Committee in 1987, oversight was transferred to the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, which retained that authority 

until 1995, when the beauty shop operation was privatized. 

From the 100th Congress through the 103rd Congresses (1987–

1994), the Personnel and Police Subcommittee continued the 

Committee’s close oversight through a series of staff meetings. 

During the 100th Congress, in 1987, for example, Subcommittee Chairman Leon Panetta of California conducted a 

closed door oversight hearing on both the beauty and barber 

shops to “sort through the traditions and fi nances of the barbers and hairdressers.”956 Two years later, the full committee 

pursuant to a Subcommittee recommendation, “approved 

by unanimous consent a request to revise the House Beauty 

Shop Pay Schedule.”957

On October 21, 1990, Representative Mary Rose Oakar, 

Chairman of the Personnel and Police Subcommittee, led 

eff orts on the House fl oor to retain money for renovation 

of the beauty shop in the FY1991 legislative branch appropriations bill. In her support of the renovation, Oaker noted 

that she, along with ranking member of the Subcommittee 

Representative Pat Roberts, and Committee Chairman Frank 

Annunzio of Illinois, “with the able help of the Speaker, and 

his staff and our staff s,” had “set a course to achieve fairness 

for the people who work in and around the Capitol.” Along 

the way, one of the things she realized along the way was “that 

the people who worked at the beauty shop did something very 

unique: Th ey do not cost the taxpayers 1 cent. . . . As a matter of fact, they have paid back to the Treasury $120,000 in 

the last couple of years.” Th e problem now, she continued, is 

that the shop was not safe because the “electrical outlets and 

the electrical system [had] not been replaced in 30 years.”958

Attempts to delete the renovation were defeated later that day, 

and $375,000 was included in the FY 1991 Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act for the renovation.959
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 269

On April 8, 1992, Representative Oakar introduced H. 

Res. 423 (102nd Congress), a resolution to amend the “Rules 

of the House of Representatives to provide certain changes in 

the administrative operations of the House. Included among 

the resolution’s provisions was language assigning operational 

and fi nancial responsibility for the House Beauty Shop to 

a new Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, 

subject to policy direction and oversight by the Committee 

on House Administration. Th e following day, the House 

agreed to the transfer to the Director of Non-Legislative and 

Financial Services.960 

Privatization

Th e move to privatize the barber shops began soon after the 

1994 mid-term congressional elections. On January 4, 1995, 

the House approved H.Res. 6 (104th Congress), which, among 

other things, created the position of Chief Administrative 

Offi cer (CAO) who assumed the duties previously performed 

by the director of non-legislative and fi nancial services, and 

responsibility for managing the operations of other House 

administrative offi ces and support services. H.Res. 6, also 

redesignated the Committee on House Administration as 

the Committee on House Oversight.961

On May 23, 1995, the “Committee on House Oversight 

directed the CAO to issue, within 30 days, a request for proposal ( RFP) to contract out” the House Beauty Shop, “subject 

to review and approval of the Committee Chairman in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.” Th e request for 

proposal was issued on June 28, 1995.962 In August 1995, the 

CAO announced a management contract with Gino Morena 

Enterprises, which at the time operated 600 hair cutting establishments in the United States, many on military bases.963

A decade later, Congress established the House Services 

Revolving Fund in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act.964 Th e act creating the fund terminated three existing 

revolving funds—the House Barber Shops Revolving Fund, 

the House Beauty Shop Revolving Fund (which had been in 

existence since 1969), and the House Restaurant Revolving 

Fund965— and transferred remaining deposits in those funds 

into the new fund.

Privatizing the beauty shops reflected a House decision to have the Committee’s role become one of oversight 

rather than administrative management, an approach that 

continued through the 112th Congress (2011–2012).966 Th e 

beauty shop, even though privatized, continued within the 

Committee’s oversight authority, through required review 

and approval of contracts for services authorized by the Chief 

Administrative Offi cer, who serves as the contract authority.

Miscellaneous Duties Member Compensation

Origins and Development

Article 1, section 6, of the Constitution stipulates that the 

compensation given Members of Congress be determined by 

law and paid out of the U.S. Treasury–thereby giving Members a role in determining their own salary. Th e appropriate 

compensation for Members has been a topic of heated debate 

throughout the nation’s history. In fact, political scientist 

John Hibbing has written, “None of the legislation dealt with 

by members of Congress elicits more emotion, bitterness, and 

controversy than that pertaining to their own renumeration.”967 Historically, the challenge for Members has been to 

adjust their compensation in a manner that attracts responsible citizens to public service while avoiding the appearance 

of excess. Factors taken into consideration have included the 

costs associated with maintaining two residences—one in 

a congressional district or state and a second in the nation’s 

capital, comparable compensation in the private and public 

sector and various regions, and the political sensitivities surrounding this issue as well as the potential electoral consequences of any adjustment.

Members were initially provided with a salary of $6 a 

day. Th is was raised to an annual rate of $1,500 with the 

passage of the Compensation Act of 1816, which made the 

adjustment retroactive to December 4, 1815. Th is act was 

quickly repealed the next year following intense public outrage. A salary of $8 dollars a day was agreed to on January 

22, 1818, although that was again retroactive, taking eff ect 

on March 3, 1817. Th e per diem system remained in eff ect 

for many years despite occasional criticism of its potential 
270 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

eff ects on the length of deliberations. Th e per diem system 

was abandoned with the adoption of an annual salary, set 

initially at $3,000, which was agreed to on August 16, 1856. 

Th is raise was also retroactive, becoming eff ective on December 3, 1855, the fi rst day of the 34th Congress. A public uproar 

over backdating pay raises erupted in 1873, after the passage 

of legislation that was retroactive to the beginning of the 42nd

Congress (March 4, 1871). Member pay was adjusted a number of times over the next few decades, even being temporarily 

lowered for a time in the early 1930s. 

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, which 

established the Committee on House Administration, raised 

Member pay from $10,000 to a rate of $12,500 per annum 

eff ective with the start of the 80th Congress (1947–1948).968

Th e act also provided Members with “an expense allowance 

of $2,500 per annum to assist in defraying expenses related 

to or resulting from the discharge of his offi cial duties, to be 

paid in equal monthly installments,” a provision repealed 

in 1955 when salaries were raised to $22,500 in a bill also 

aff ecting the pay of federal judges and U.S. Attorneys.969 Pay 

adjustments for Members since then have frequently been 

combined with adjustments for other government employees 

and offi cials and have been achieved through stand-alone legislation, recommendations from the President based on those 

made by a quadrennial salary commission (fi rst established 

in 1967), or through annual pay comparability adjustments 

that are automatic unless denied or modifi ed. Th e latter, fi rst 

established in 1975, is currently the most common method 

for adjusting Member pay.

History of Committee’s Jurisdiction Over Member 

Pay Issues 

Th e involvement of the Committee on House Administration in Member pay issues may be traced back to a change in 

the Rules of the House for the 94th Congress (1975–1976). 

Th e Rules were amended to give the Committee jurisdiction, 

along with the Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, 

over Members’ compensation and retirement, as well as the 

compensation of House offi cers and employees.970 Th e move 

sparked debate among Members who questioned both the 

necessity of this change and the motives behind it. 

During debate, Robert Bauman of Maryland asked why 

the House saw the need to give two committees concurrent 

jurisdiction “over these goodies and what this is eventually 

possibly going to cost the taxpayers.”971 Phillip Burton of 

California responded that it may be “desirable to have more 

than one avenue for the consideration of this type of legislation,” adding that since “the Committee on House Administration does work on the salaries of Members and staff , they 

could better coordinate all of these matters by also having 

jurisdiction along with the Committee on Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service.”972 Further questions and statements by Bauman, Edward Derwinski of Illinois, C. W. (Bill) Young of 

Florida, and others, demonstrate that the minority was less 

than convinced. Opponents argued that pay raises could 

be achieved more easily with this arrangement. Th ey also 

pointed out that Members’ pay was often in parity with that 

of certain executive and judicial offi cials, thereby making 

the role and potential impact of the Committee on House 

Administration in this area less clear. 

Th e Committee’s authority over various money issues 

was challenged fi ve years later during the height of the scandal 

involving Wayne Hays and Elizabeth Ray, which revolved 

around allegations that the latter was the Chairman’s mistress and retained on the House payroll despite having few, if 

any, offi cial duties. According to historian Julian Zelizer, in 

1976, “Sensing another opportunity to put Democrats on the 

defensive about corruption, Republicans proposed removing 

the power over member benefi ts and salaries from Administration.”973 A resolution was soon introduced to address the 

issue of perquisites, although not pay directly. Congressional 

Quarterly reported that the “House Republicans made their 

fi rst move June 3 to capitalize on the Hays scandal by asking 

the House in a resolution (H. Res. 1247) to take back the 

responsibility for voting on increases in the allowances and 

perquisites for House members.”974 Th e House had previously 

given the Committee the authority to increase the perquisites 

without any fl oor vote or debate in 1971. H. Res. 1247 was 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 271

referred to the Committee on June 3, 1976. In remarks on 

the fl oor that day, then-Minority Whip Bob Michel of Illinois 

referenced the earlier allowance move as one of “excess.”975

After Wayne Hays resigned from the Committee on June 

18, the Committee then proceeded to reform the allowance 

system, issuing six Committee Orders and two resolutions, 

although the Committee retained jurisdiction in this area.976

Process, coordination with other entities, and oversight

Th e pay of Members of Congress may be adjusted through 

automatic annual adjustments that take eff ect unless disapproved by Congress, recommendations from the President 

based on the fi ndings of a special pay commission, and standalone legislation. Automatic adjustments, which were fi rst 

introduced in 1975, have become the most common method 

for varying member pay. Th ese adjustments are now governed 

by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which amended the Ethics 

in Government Act of 1978.977 Stand-alone legislation was 

last used to provide increases in 1990 and 1991. Th e last pay 

increase under the commission procedure was in 1987.

During recent Congresses, numerous bills and resolutions dealing with Member pay have been introduced and 

referred to the Committee, which has taken no further action 

on the vast majority of these. Th e scant legislative action emanating from the Committee in this area, however, belies its 

involvement in more indirect ways. Th e Committee remains 

heavily involved through its oversight of the issue and the 

behind-the-scenes eff orts and staff expertise.

Coordination with other Committees and leadership is 

another important role of the Committee. While the Committee, through its jurisdiction in this area, continues to 

receive measures that solely deal with Member pay, many 

pay measures also deal with subjects under the jurisdiction of 

other committees and are multiply referred. Th e Committee 

has shared referrals, for example, with the House Committee 

on Government Reform (House Post Offi ce and Civil Service 

prior to the 104th Congress), the Committee on Rules, and 

the Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct.

Th e legislative history of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 

which included government-wide pay and ethics reforms, 

exemplifi es the complex confl uence of interests, institutional entities, and political and personal sensitivities. Th at 

measure tied the annual adjustment of Member pay to the 

changes in the Employment Cost Index, banned honoraria, 

and revised the rules governing outside earned income and 

employment after government service. When it was introduced in the House on November 15, 1989, it was referred 

to multiple House committees including Rules, Post Offi ce 

and Civil Service, House Administration, Standards of 

Offi cial Conduct, Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Government Operations. It passed the House the following day. 

Th e seemingly expeditious passage was possible because of 

the prior negotiations and recommendations of a bipartisan 

House Ethics Task Force chaired by Vic Fazio of California, 

who also served as the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, 

and Lynn Martin of Illinois, who was the ranking minority 

member on the Subcommittee on the Legislative Process of 

the House Rules Committee. Th e reform also succeeded in 

part, as noted by Congressional Quarterly, because “House 

Speaker Thomas S. Foley of Washington and Minority 

Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois put the full weight and 

prestige of their offi ces behind the pay raise, in a show of 

bipartisanship and leadership force” that had been missing 

in earlier failed attempts.978 

Numerous bills and resolutions dealing with Member 

pay, including many aiming to alter the automatic adjustment 

procedure, have been referred to the Committee since the 

passage of the 1989 act. Very few, however, were the subject 

of additional consideration. Th ose that were include an act 

making technical changes to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 

and the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992.979

Other printed government sources do not shed much 

light on the Committee’s activities. Biennial Committee 

activity reports indicate that the Committee has coordinated 

with other committees and participated in information sharing. For example, the Committee’s Activity Report for the 

101st Congress (the Congress that saw the passage of the 

Ethics Reform Act) notes that “On March 26th, staff of 
272 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct briefed 

the entire Committee on House Administration staff on 

highlights of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.”980 Th e report 

includes no further information on the discussion or the 

act itself, but it does record the numerous Member pay bills 

referred to the Committee that Congress.981

Other measures have dealt tangentially with Member 

pay, focusing on aspects other than an annual salary adjustment. The Committee also has received bills proposing 

deductions in Members’ pay for the use of the attending physician, funds for survivors of deceased Members, and eff orts 

to limit congressional pay in the absence of a balanced or 

timely budget. Th e Committee has also provided administrative oversight in this area. Th e Committee’s Activity Report 

for the 102nd Congress, for example, notes that the House 

Information Systems (H.I.S.) “developed an Electronic Fund 

Transfer capability for the Member Payroll System.”982

Another example of this includes the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, 

which the Committee marked up and reported during the 

104th Congress. Th e Corrections Act transferred responsibility for various House functions, including the administration 

of Members’ pay and mileage, to the newly-created position 

of Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO).983 Th e Committee’s 

report on the bill noted that the “responsibility for deductions 

of pay for absence of Members under the provision codifi ed 

as section 39 of title 2, United States Code, has been transferred from the Sergeant at Arms to the Chief Administrative Offi cer upon certifi cation by the Clerk of the House.”984

Th is provision is notable because all three of these elected 

House offi cers fall under the oversight responsibility of the 

Committee. Th e Committee also has received bills proposing deductions in Members’ pay for the use of the attending 

physician, funds for survivors of deceased Members, and 

eff orts to limit congressional pay in the absence of a balanced 

or timely budget.

When reviewing legislation concerning Member pay, 

the Committee must now also take into consideration the 

constitutional obligations imposed by the ratifi cation of the 

Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Th e amendment says “No law, 

varying the compensation for the services of the Senators 

and Representatives, shall take eff ect, until an election of 

representatives shall have intervened.”985 Originally proposed 

on September 25, 1789, along with the 10 amendments that 

became the Bill of Rights, the amendment was ratifi ed in May 

1992, after receiving the approval of the requisite number of 

states. No additional consideration by Congress was required.

Th e Amendment was a matter of discussion early in the 

112th Congress, when a lapse in appropriations appeared possible. Member pay is part of a permanent appropriation and 

would not have been aff ected,986 but a number of Members 

expressed interest in stopping the distribution of their salaries. Legislation was introduced, and the House and Senate 

each passed a bill (H.R. 1255 and S. 388, respectively). No 

further action has been taken on either bill. On April 8, 2011, 

the Speaker of the House issued a “Dear Colleague” letter 

indicating that in the event of a shutdown, Members would 

be paid pursuant to the 27th Amendment, although Members could elect to return any compensation to the Treasury. 

According to its semiannual report, the Committee participated in this discussion by advising “Members of methods 

to return their salary to the Treasury should they wish to do 

so in the event of a lapse in appropriations.” 

Government Shutdown

Under the Antidefi ciency Act, federal agencies must cease 

operations, except in emergency situations, during a funding gap.988 Th e most recent legislative branch funding gap 

occurred between November 13–19, 1995.989

On November 13, 1995, Committee on House Administration Chairman Bill Th omas issued a “Dear Colleague” 

letter stating:

In the event that there is a lapse in appropriations 

relating to the Legislative Branch of the Federal 

Government, it will be necessary to shut down nonessential House operations eff ective on November 14, 1995. However, the Committee on House 

Oversight has determined that any disruption in 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 273

legislative activities of the House would result in an 

inability to exercise the powers specifi ed in Article I 

of the Constitution of the United States . . . Th erefore, in accordance with the authority vested in the 

Committee on House Oversight under House Rule 

X, clause 1(h), the Committee directs that upon a 

lapse in appropriations for the Legislative Branch, 

each House employing authority shall designate 

as essential personnel only those employees whose 

primary job responsibilities are directly related to 

legislative activities. All other House personnel shall 

be placed in a furlough status by the appropriate 

employing authority until appropriations are made 

available. Each employing authority who furloughs 

employees shall submit to the Finance Offi ce an 

‘‘Authorization for Furlough of Employees’’ form 

by November 15, 1995. . .990

Another “Dear Colleague” letter, issued by Chairman 

Th omas two days later provided “further defi nition of the 

meaning of ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ employees for the 

House of Representatives, including an opinion from the 

Congressional Research Service about the fundamental role 

of the House under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.”991 Following the enactment of appropriations, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member Vic Fazio issued a “Dear Colleague” letter 

on November 20, 1995, explaining the return of employees from furlough status and the implementation of legislation included in the appropriations act requiring pay for all 

employees during the shutdown period.992

In April 2011, when continued funding for the federal 

government following the expiration of a fi scal year 2011 

continuing resolution appeared uncertain, the Committee 

again worked to determine how the House would uphold 

its Constitutional responsibilities in the event of a lapse of 

appropriations.

At the time, in response to a perceived need, the Committee issued a document entitled Legislative Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations: Guidance Issued by the Committee on House Administration. Th e document examines various 

operational, pay and benefi ts issues. It provides guidance to 

Members in understanding the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” employees, clarifi es the responsibilities of the “employing authority,” and discusses procedures 

and regulations related to furloughed employees. Th e Committee also was involved in the development of a “Sample 

Notice to Outside Vendors, Consultants and Contractors,” 

sample notices to essential and non-essential employees, and 

a voluntary furlough form.

On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a 

“Dear Colleague” letter indicating that in the event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would be paid pursuant to the 

27th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “No law, 

varying the compensation for the services of the Senators 

and Representatives, shall take eff ect, until an election of 

Representatives shall have intervened”—although Members 

could elect to return any compensation to the Treasury. Th e 

Committee responded to requests from Members inquiring 

about this procedure. 

Any lapse in funding would have had consequences 

across the Capitol Complex. Th e Committee held oversight 

meetings with House offi cers to ensure the security of the 

Capitol and the continuance of legislative operations. It also 

met with agency offi cials to determine, for example, “how 

the potential government shutdown would have aff ected 

the Library [of Congress], the Law Library, the Offi ce of 

Congressional Information and Publishing, the Legislative 

Information Systems Offi ce, and Human Resources.”993

Some congressional offi ces and agencies issued guidance 

regarding how they would operate and what services would 

be available to Congress. For example, the Architect’s 

guidance addressed closures in the Capitol Visitor Center 

(CVC), the suspension of tours and fl ag offi ce operations, 

and limited trash removal and cleaning services. Th e Committee also distributed information regarding how any lapse 

would limit access to parking and building entrances and 

close facilities like the restaurants. 
274 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Art In Th e Capitol and House Offi ce Buildings

Origins and Development

Although artwork had been earlier displayed in the Capitol, 

it was not until 1872 that Congress identifi ed a congressional 

entity to accept, maintain, and display artwork.994 In an 1872 

statute, Congress assigned jurisdiction to the Joint Committee on the Library, which had been established in 1802,995

directing that: 

Th e Joint Committee on the Library, whenever, 

in their judgment, it is expedient, are authorized 

to accept any work of the fi ne arts, on behalf of 

Congress, which may be off ered, and to assign the 

same such place in the Capitol as they may deem 

suitable, and shall have the supervision of all works 

of art that may be placed in the Capitol.996

In 1875, the Committee’s authority was expanded further when Congress required that: 

. . . no work of art not the property of the United 

States shall be exhibited in the Capitol, nor shall 

any room in the Capitol be used for private studios 

or works of art, without permission from the Joint 

Committee on the Library, given in writing; and 

it shall be the duty of the Architect of the Capitol . . . to carry these provisions into eff ect. 

Th e Committee’s role with regard to artwork was further 

defi ned by the House in 1908, when the Chamber agreed to 

a resolution clarifying that matters involving certain types 

of art, namely “statuary and pictures,” fell within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee.998 In 1933, the Joint Committee’s authority over statues in the Capitol was further 

expanded, when the House, in H. Con. Res. 47 (73rd Congress, 1933–1934), required the Joint Committee to approve 

or disapprove actions taken by the Architect of the Capitol 

(AOC) with regard to the display of statues. A second section of the resolution addressed the role of the Architect, by 

authorizing and directing the AOC “to relocate within the 

Capitol any of the statues already received and placed in 

Statuary Hall, and to provide for the reception and location 

of the statues received heretofore from the States.”999

Legislation referred to the Joint Committee prior to 1947 

related primarily to the purchase, acceptance, and creation 

of artwork, including statues, paintings, and other types of 

art.1000 In 1910, for example, the Joint Committee authorized 

an expression of appreciation to Italy for its gifts of rare works 

of art, and, in a separate action, authorized the House Committee on the Library to employ artists to paint portraits 

of former House Speakers. In 1926, the Joint Committee 

approved a measure allowing it to purchase both an oil painting of former President Harding and a replica of a bust of 

George Washington.1001

Th e following year, the Joint Committee authorized the 

fi rst comprehensive compilation of artwork in the Capitol, led 

by Charles E. Fairman, Capitol Curator.1002 Prior the Fairman 

compilation, “there were only occasional compilations made, 

none of which followed any defi nite pattern, or standard, 

and most of which contained only general, incomplete, and 

oftentimes unsubstantiated information.”1003 Four decades 

later, House Administration Chairman Omar Burleson of 

Texas would praise the Fairman compilation as the “most 

comprehensive history of the accumulation and development 

of art in the Capitol ever prepared. Th is voluminous work, 

undoubtedly, is the most valuable writing presently available 

concerning this particular subject matter. Its historical and 

encyclopedical usefulness cannot be overestimated.”1004

It appears that the Joint Committee, working with the 

Architect of the Capitol, retained sole authority over receipt and 

display of art until the passage of the 1946 Reorganization Act, 

which directed that jurisdiction over certain artworks be shared 

with the Committee on House Administration.1005 Language 

still in eff ect today made the new Committee responsible for 

“matters relating to . . . statuary and pictures [and] acceptance 

or purchase of works of art for the Capitol.”1006

Role of Committee

While congressional oversight of Capitol artwork was placed 

under the Committee’s mandate in the 1946 Act, its role 

in decisions aff ecting art was strengthened by another secBEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 275

tion of the Act, which permanently placed the Committee 

Chairman, and four other Committee members, on the Joint 

Committee on the Library.1007 In granting this authority to 

the Committee, Congress did not change the primary role 

of the Joint Committee, allowing it to continue its broader, 

statutorily defi ned jurisdiction over Capitol artwork. Since 

1947, jurisdiction of the Committee over Capitol and House 

Offi ce Building artwork evolved into a signifi cantly larger 

role, particularly in the late 1980s. Until then, the Committee periodically considered and reported relevant legislation, 

such as that, for example, authorizing temporary placement 

in the Capitol Rotunda of a statue of Brigham Young, “in 

order that suitable acceptance ceremony can be arranged for 

the acquisition of the statue . . . the permanent place for the 

statue will be in Statuary Hall.”1008

An achievement of the Committee with regard to the 

Capitol’s art collection, was its role in support of updating, 

completing, and printing a 1952 compilation of art prepared 

by the Architect of the Capitol. H. Con. Res. 350 (88th Congress, 1963–1964), which was introduced by House Administration Chairman Omar Burleson of Texas,1009 directed the 

Architect to undertake this task. Th e result was a 426-page 

book, entitled Compilation of Works of Art and Other Objects 

in the United States Capitol. Chairman Burleson, while praising the earlier 1927 compilation by the Capitol Curator, 

wrote the following in the book’s foreword:

By 1952, it had been apparent for some time ... that 

simple, concise, comprehensive, and factual cataloging of these works of art had been long overdue. [Th e 

earlier work] was by then approximately a quarter of 

a century out of date; it is narrative in form; it was 

written primarily from an artist’s perspective; and 

consequently, it does not contain factual information which, though unimportant to the artist or art 

critic, is most important to the cataloger. Th e impelling need in 1952 for a current offi cial cataloging 

culminated in the Architect of the Capitol compiling in concise form a complete list of all the art in 

the Capitol, together with the date and manner of 

acquisition, the location of each and the names of 

the respective painters and sculptors.1010

Th e new Compilation contained detailed information on 

744 works of art, complete with pictures. Included were 128 

portraits, 54 paintings (other than portraits), 75 marble and 

bronze busts, 95 statues in the Capitol, one sculptured marble 

portrait monument, 23 relief portraits of “lawgivers,” 67 

sculptured reliefs, 165 frescoes, murals and lunettes (partial 

listing), 120 miscellaneous works (interior), 14 exterior works 

of art, 2 monuments and memorials on the Capitol grounds, 

51 portraits, paintings, photographs and busts (property of 

House and Senate committees), and 46 works of art transferred from the Capitol. Additionally, the volume refers to 

1,239 works of art lost in fi res, 48 works of art (not carried 

in the records of the Architect of the Capitol, as a part of the 

Capitol Art Collection), three paintings on indefi nite loan, 

four portraits carried in 1952 and returned to owners, and 

1,390 “other works of art and objects.”1011

Membership of the House Fine Arts Board. In late 

1988, the House gave the Committee a central role in congressional oversight of artwork when its Chairman was statutorily made Chairman of the newly–established House Fine 

Arts Board and three other Committee members, also serving 

on the Joint Committee on the Library, were permanently 

named to the Board.1012 Along with the Committee’s legislative jurisdiction over the Board, this legislation placed 

the Committee on House Administration in position as the 

primary House entity responsible for art and related work in 

the Capitol and House buildings. 

Th e Board was given statutory authority over “all works 

of fi ne art, historical objects, and similar property that are the 

property of the Congress and are for display or other use in 

the House of Representatives wing of the Capitol, the House 

of Representatives Offi ce Buildings, or any other location 

under the control of the House of Representatives.”1013 Due 

to their shared chairmanships, the law also gave the Board 

and the Committee direct oversight of the administration 

of art activities assigned to the House Clerk and Architect 

of the Capitol. 
276 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

With regard to the House Clerk, law required the Board 

to “supervise and direct” the House Clerk in “the administration, maintenance, and display of the works of art and other 

property [owned by Congress],” and in his consultations 

“with the Architect on matters of repair, renovation, conservation, or display of objects in the Registry.”1014 Four years 

later, the House transferred the Clerk’s responsibilities to the 

new Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services.1015

In 1995, these functions were again transferred when the 

position of Director was replaced by the newly-created House 

Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO),1016 who remains under 

the Board’s supervision. 

The Architect was required to advise and assist the 

Board and the Clerk “in preservation and cataloging as 

well as design and construction of displays, especially for 

buildings and structures and similar cataloged objects 

permanently attached to, or integrally part of, buildings 

and structures . . . through contract, curatorial, conservation, and other services.” Th e Board was also authorized to 

“assign direct responsibility to the Architect for renovations, 

repairs, or conservation, especially for architectural elements 

and permanently affi xed objects.”1017

In the 110th Congress, the Board accepted six portraits 

of committee chairs, and organized portrait funds for fi ve 

additional chairs.1018 In the 111th Congress (2009–2010), 

the Board accepted six portrait requests and reported on the 

status of fi ve additional portraits.1019 In the fi rst session of the 

112th Congress (2011–2012), three portraits were accepted 

into the collection and requests were made to fund portraits 

for an additional six portraits.1020

Membership on the Capitol Preservation Commission. Th e Committee’s role over artwork was augmented 

further in 1988 when its Chairman and Ranking Minority 

member were permanently appointed to membership on the 

newly-created Capitol Preservation Commission.1021 Established in response to concerns of congressional and private 

interests in ensuring the proper future preservation of the 

Capitol and its art, the Commission was empowered (1) to 

secure private funds for the acquisition of art for the Capitol; 

(2) to accept gifts of art to Congress; and (3) to coordinate 

activities of the House Fine Arts Board, the Joint Committee 

on the Library, and the Senate Commission on Art. Th e Act 

creating the Commission defi ned its purposes as:

. . . providing for improvements in, preservation 

of, and acquisitions for the United States Capitol . . . providing for works of fi ne art and other 

property for display in the United States Capitol 

and at other locations under the control of Congress, and . . . conducting other activities that 

directly facilitate, encourage, or otherwise support 

any of the [above] purposes.1022

According to the Commission, its members “may fund 

or assist in the funding of improvements to the Capitol 

Building and surrounding grounds if such improvements 

are authorized, undertaken, and completed under the procedures established by the Congress for such purposes,” and 

funds may be used for: 

. . . purchase of art, furnishings, or items of historical interest, provided that such expenses are 

approved by a majority of the Members of the Committee from the body of Congress for which such 

purchases are made. The Commission may not 

maintain any collection of fi ne and other property 

that it receives or acquires. Instead, it may assist in 

the transfer of such items to a congressional entity 

(such as the Senate Commission on Art, the House 

of Representatives Fine Arts Board, or the Joint 

Committee on the Library) or dispose of such property by sale or other transaction.1023

Participation of the Committee on House Administration Chairman and ranking minority Member on the Commission since 1988 gave it an even more prominent role in 

policies governing the administration of art in the Capitol, 

and, since 1999, in the selection and future display of art in 

the new Capitol Visitor Center. Th e Committee’s infl uence, 

through its membership on the Commission, has allowed it 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 277

to play an active role in the planning, engineering, design, 

and construction of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).1024

Oversight of the Architect of the Capitol. In exercising its general oversight of House services, the Committee 

reviews activities of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) as 

they pertain in particular to maintenance of art in House 

offi ce buildings, their grounds, and the House side of the 

Capitol. Authority over the AOC is derived not only from the 

Committee’s review of House services, but also (1) membership of its Chairman and ranking minority member on the 

House Fine Arts Board, which receives advice from the AOC 

on purchase and disposition of art and assistance in displays, 

repairs, conservation, and renovations and (2) membership 

on the Joint Committee on the Library, which oversees maintenance and repair of art, including murals and architectural 

elements in the Capitol. 

In addition to its oversight authority, the Committee 

considers legislation modifying the Architect’s role in his 

administration of art. For example, the Subcommittee on 

Libraries and Memorials met to report H.R. 60 in the 100th

Congress (1987–1988), which gave permission to the AOC 

to accept “gifts and bequests of personal property and money 

for the benefi ts of the Capitol Buildings Art Collection.”1025

Th e bill, as amended, was ordered reported by the Committee on June 24, 1987, passed by the House on July 21, 1987, 

and the Senate, amended, on December 19, and incorporated 

into S. 2840, which was signed into law as P.L. 100-696 on 

November 18, 1988.1026

Authority Over Funding of Art. Finally, the Committee’s authority over art has also been infl uenced by its 

right to approve expenditures from “appropriate accounts of 

the House,” which has permitted the Committee to approve 

House funds to meet costs associated with artwork. In 1999, 

for example, Committee members agreed to a funding resolution using House appropriations for acquisition of portraits 

of former Speakers.1027 It appears that this authority, however, 

is not often used.

Capitol Artwork Collections. In recent years, the 

Committee on House Administration has played an active 

role in accepting statues donated to Congress by the states as 

part of the National Statuary Hall Collection, commissioning 

artwork for placement in the Capitol, and consideration of 

proposals to expand the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Acceptance of Statues for National Statuary Hall.

Th e National Statuary Hall Collection “is comprised of statues donated by individual states to honor persons notable in 

their history,”1028 and includes 100 statues, two from each 

state. Historically, the Committee has considered legislation 

authorizing the acceptance of statues, provided by the states, 

for inclusion in the National Statuary Hall collection. In 

recent years, several states have donated a statue to complete 

their contribution to the collection or provide a statue to 

replace an existing National Statuary Hall Collection statue 

previously donated by the state.

In the 109th Congress (2005–2006), two states, which 

had previously donated one statue to the collection, donated 

a second. The State of Nevada donated a statue of Sarah 

Winnemucca and the State of New Mexico donated a statue 

of Po’Pay. In both cases, the Committee considered and 

agreed to concurrent resolutions accepting the donations.1029

In July 2008, the Joint Committee on the Library 

(JCL) approved a major relocation plan for the statues in 

the Statuary Hall Collection.1030 Th is plan provided for the 

incorporation of several statues in the new Capitol Visitor 

Center (CVC) and established a collection of statues from 

the original thirteen colonies to be arranged in the Crypt of 

the Capitol.1031

Also, during the 110th Congress, the JCL approved for 

installation in the Statuary Hall Collection statues of former 

President Ronald Reagan, abolitionist and women’s rights 

advocate Sojourner Truth, former President Gerald Ford, and 

activist Helen Keller.1032

The 112th Congress, acting on a bill introduced by 

Committee on House Administration Chairman Daniel 

E. Lungren, approved the permanent display of a statue in 

Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol of Frederick 

Douglass, who escaped from slavery and became a leading 

writer, orator, and publisher, and one of the Nation’s most 
278 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

infl uential advocates for abolitionism, women’s suff rage, and 

the equality of all people.1033

Commissioning Artwork. Th e Committee on House 

Administration has considered bills to directly commission 

artwork for the United States Capitol Building. Most often, 

these bills direct the Architect of the Capitol to contract for a 

new statue or to update an existing piece of artwork. In the 109th

Congress, the Committee considered bills to revise the “statue 

commemorating women’s suff rage,” to include the likeness of 

Sojourner Truth, to commission a statue of Rosa Parks, and 

to obtain a statue of Constantino Brumidi.1034 Th e legislation 

ordering the commissioning of a statue of Rosa Parks (H.R. 

4145) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on 

December 1, 2005.1035 In the 111th Congress, the Committee 

determined the winner of a nationwide contest to select the Rosa 

Parks statue and approved the fi nal clay sculpture model.1036

In November 2007, the Committee on House Administration, in cooperation of the House Fine Arts Board, sponsored the unveiling of the offi cial portrait of Representative 

Dalip Saund of California, the fi rst Asian American to serve 

in Congress.1037 Th is ceremony was part of a program fi rst 

developed by the Board in 2002 to include additional works 

of art in the Capitol representing historically important Members of the House. Overall, six portraits were added to the 

Capitol collection pursuant to this program.1038

Expanding National Statuary Hall. In recent years, several bills have been introduced to alter the size of the National 

Statuary Hall collection through expanding the number of permitted statues per state or providing the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Territories with statues in the collection. 

Expansion of Permitted Statues Per State. Since the creation 

of National Statuary Hall in 1864, each state has been allowed 

to place two statues in the National Statuary Hall collection. 

As the union has grown from 35 states in July 1864 to 50 states 

today, the number of statues in the collection has reached 100. 

Supporters of providing a third statue to each state argue that 

the additional statues would provide an opportunity to increase 

the diversity of the National Statuary Hall Collection, which 

currently includes only 16 statues or women or minorities.1039

Th e concept of adding a third statue per state was fi rst 

introduced in 1993 by Representative Douglas (Pete) Petersen. 

Th e bill (H.R. 3368) would have provided a third statue to 

each state and restricted the ability of states to furnish an 

additional statue or replace existing statues for “100 years 

after the date on which it furnishes its third statue. . . . ”1040

H.R. 3368 was referred to the Committee on House Administration and did not receive further action.

In the 112th Congress (2011–2012), Representative Steve 

Cohen introduced a bill (H.R. 1289) to expand the National 

Statuary collection—from two statues per state to three—to 

encourage more diversity within the collection. In his introductory remarks on the bill, Representative Cohen summarized his thoughts on the current diversity of the collection 

and why better descriptive representation of women and 

minority groups is appropriate.

Currently, there are 100 statues on display given 

by the States, and only 16 are women or minority 

groups. Ten are women with three Native-Americans; three statues are Native-American males, two 

are Hispanic, and one is a Pacifi c Islander. Although 

there have been many noteworthy African Americans and Asian Americans in our history, no State 

has submitted a statue honoring one of them. Th is 

disparity must be rectifi ed.

If you walked through the Capitol and looked at the 

statues, you would think all the heroes and leaders 

were granite white men. Th is bill is to express that 

equal representation of all Americans is essential in 

our historical perspectives and the educational value 

that the Capitol off ers its thousands of visitors.1041

H.R. 1289 was referred to the House Administration and has 

not received further action.

Adding Statues for the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories. Legislation designed to allow the District of Columbia, 

the U.S. Territories, or both to place statues in the National 

Statuary Hall collection has been introduced since the 1970s. 

In the 99th Congress (1985–1986), H.R. 3788 was introduced 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 279

by Delegate Ben Blaz from Guam. Th e bill would have provided for statues from the U.S. Territories. H.R. 3788 was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration and did 

not receive further attention.

Th e Committee was again referred legislation to expand 

the National Statuary Hall Collection to the District of 

Columbia and the U.S. Territories in the 109th Congress 

(2005–2006). Delegate Eni Faleomavaega of American 

Samoa. introduced H.R. 4070 which would have provided 

the U.S. Territories—American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 

Island—with one statue each in the National Statuary Hall 

collection. To allow for the addition of statues for the territories, the bill would have amended 2 U.S.C. § 2131 to 

redefi ne the term “state” to include the territories. In his 

introductory remarks on H.R. 4070, Delegate Faleomavaega stated:

On July 2, 1864, Congress enacted a law creating 

the National Statuary Hall. In the debate over what 

to do with the old House Chamber, Mr. Morrill in 

the House of Representatives proposed, “To what 

end more useful or grand, and at the same time 

simple and inexpensive, can we devote the Chamber than to ordain that it shall be set apart for the 

reception of such statuary as each State shall elect 

to be deserving of in this lasting commemoration?” 

At the time of enactment, American Samoa, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico were not a 

part of the U.S. and were not included in Mr. Morrill's proposal. For this reason we come before you 

today to introduce legislation that would extend 

this same courtesy to Americans who live in the 

outlying areas of our great country. Each of our 

outlying areas has a unique history and a unique 

relationship to the United States. The annals of 

our territorial histories are replete with examples of 

outstanding leaders. To allow this legislation would 

be to honor these great citizens' contributions. 

Also, this legislation would symbolically acknowledge that our U.S. Territories are an important, 

integral part of our national heritage. Imagine the 

pride a young person would feel, traveling here to 

our nation's capital from American Samoa, or the 

Virgin Islands, or Guam, or Puerto Rico, and seeing a statue of a person from their own territory's 

history, side by side with many of America's other 

signifi cant historical fi gures. 

Because this legislation provides a simple and inexpensive method for us here in Congress to educate 

Capitol visitors about the contributions of our outlying areas to our great nation, I urge my colleagues 

to support this bill.1042

H.R. 4070 did not receive further action in the 109th Congress.

In the 111th Congress (2009–2010), two pieces of legislation were introduced that would have provided statues for the 

District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories in the National 

Statuary Hall collection. H.R. 5493, introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, 

would have provided for statues for the District of Columbia, 

and H.R. 5711, introduced by Delegate Eni Faleomavaega 

of American Samoa, would have provided statues for the 

U.S. Territories in the National Statuary Hall collection. In 

July 2010, the Committee on House Administration held a 

markup on both bills. After an attempt to merge the bills was 

unsuccessful, the Committee reported both bills.1043

Between the reporting of H.R. 5493 and H.R. 5711 by 

the Committee on House Administration and the consideration of these bills in the House, Chairman Robert Brady 

helped negotiate a merger of the bills. Subsequently, a single 

bill that would permit both the District of Columbia and the 

territories to place statues in the collection, H.R. 5493, was 

debated in the House. Th e bill passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the Rules.1044 No further action was 

taken in the Senate. 

In the 112th Congress, Representative Dan Lungren 

introduced H.R. 3106, which would permit the District of 
280 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Columbia and the territories to place statues in the National 

Statuary Hall collection.1045 Th e bill is virtually identical in 

language as the merged bill considered by the House at the 

end of the 111th Congress. Upon introduction, the bill was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration. By the 

end of 2011, no further action had been taken.

House Pages

Origin and Development

Since the First Congress, messengers, now known as pages, 

have been employed to assist Members of the House and 

Senate in performing their duties. Pages serve principally as 

messengers who carry documents, letters, and notes between 

the House and Senate, Members’ offi ces, committees, and 

the Library of Congress. “Before the Capitol was wired for 

electricity and signal bells were installed,” historian Donald 

Ritchie writes, “pages raced from room to room to summon 

members to vote. Before telephones, pages rode horseback 

to the White House and executive departments, delivering 

bills and correspondence. Pages also worked as the fi rst telephone operators in the Capitol. Although technology replaced 

these functions, pages can still be seen darting through the 

Capitol carrying messages for the members.”1046 Before being 

discontinued in the 112th Congress (2011–2012), the House 

page program was a integral and historic feature of life in the 

chamber and an important oversight responsibility of the 

Committee on House Administration.

Initially adults served as the messengers, but by the 20th

Congress (1827–1829) boys, who were called pages, had 

begun to serve as “runners” or errand boys in the House.1047

A 1842 report by a House select committee established in the 

27th Congress (1841–1843) to study the contingent expenses 

of the House provides the following summary of the history 

of pages up to that point:

From the origin of the present Government in 1789, 

to the present time they [messengers] have been 

employed under the orders and resolutions of the 

House, and experience has attested the necessity of 

their services. Th e use of boys, or pages, was introduced at a later period; but from the fi rst session of 

Congress held at the city of Washington, they have 

continued to be employed, with approbation in the 

House. Th e ready transaction of the business of 

the House, the Committee believes, indispensably 

requires the service of such attendants.1048

Statistics included in the Committee’s report indicate 

that the number of young pages employed by the House had 

grown from three in the 20th Congress (1827–1829), to 12 in 

the 27th Congress (1841–1843).1049

John Quincy Adams, the only former President ever 

elected to be a Member of Congress, once described the pages 

who dashed about the House Chamber in the 1830s as “tripping Mercuries,” little messengers of the “gods” of Congress. 

“In those days,” pages were seated at the front of the House 

Chamber, “as pages in the Senate still are, directly facing 

the members.” Th ey “sat on the low steps at each side of the 

House Speaker’s chair.” Eventually the pages “lost their seats 

on the crowded steps of the [S]peaker’s rostrum and were 

moved to side benches at the rear” of the chamber.1050 Many 

of the boys who served as pages were orphans or children of 

poor families.” When their plight came to the attention of a 

Senator or Representative, the boys were given a job running 

errands for them. “Members often paid the boys a bonus if 

they performed their duties well, but this practice was discontinued in 1843,” following the report of the House select 

committee’s review of contingent expenses.1051

Although it is unclear who had initial jurisdiction over 

the messengers, responsibility for paying them was given to 

the Committee on Accounts, when it was created in 1803, “to 

superintend and control expenditures of the contingent fund 

of the House of Representatives.”1052 In 1845, House offi cers 

were made accountable to the Committee on Accounts for 

employees under their direction and for the use of the contingent fund to operate their offi ces, and to investigate activities 

of House offi cers and their employees.1053 Th e Committee on 

Accounts’ jurisdiction over pages was further broadened in 

the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations Act of 

1901, which provided that “No person should be employed 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 281

as a page in the service of the House of Representatives who 

is under twelve years of age or more than eighteen years of 

age,” except for “chief pages, riding pages, and telephone 

pages.” Th e act also required the Committee on Accounts to 

“inquire into the enforcement or violation” of the age requirement.1054 During the next six decades, several resolutions to 

change the ages of the pages was introduced and referred to 

the Committee on Accounts, and later the Committee on 

House Administration, but no action was taken until 1965.

Th ere were congressional “pages for 125 years before 

there was any law that required them to go to school,” writes 

Bill Severn in his history of pages. “From 1880 to 1925 they 

had no organized schooling. Many went to grammar school 

before becoming pages, but whatever education they got 

depended on the boy and whether he had money to pay for 

it.” With the enactment of the Compulsory School Attendance Act for the District of Columbia in 1925, the “minimum age at which a boy could quit school and go to work 

was increased from twelve to fourteen.” Th is requirement 

meant that a number of younger pages could not continue 

to serve on Capitol Hill unless they attended a school or 

received instruction from a tutor for a specifi c number of 

hours each week. Since their duties in Congress prevented 

pages from attending school during the day, Bert Kennedy, 

the Doorkeeper of the House, arranged for them to attend a 

private school in a basement room of the Capitol beginning 

in 1926, where a Baltimore educator David J. Laupheimer 

was their principal as well as their lone teacher.1055 

When Laupheimer left in the Spring of 1929, “arrangements were made for a private school in Washington, the 

Devitt Preparatory School, to take over education of the 

pages.” Th at arrangement proved impractical and the basement school was revived with the “approval and cooperation” 

of the House Patronage Committee in December 1931, under 

the direction of Ernest Kendall, a young Oklahoma school 

teacher. Kendall devoted the next 15 years to developing 

the school, which eventually included House, Senate, and 

Supreme Court pages. Within a year, his goal of meeting 

the standards of the District of Columbia school board for 

an accredited private school was achieved, and soon many 

of its graduates continued their education at an institution 

of higher learning. “As a private school, it had no government fi nancial support and all expenses had to be paid for 

out of tuition fees.” Not until 1942, through the eff orts of 

Senator Harold H. Burton and House Majority Leader John 

McCormack, did Congress fi nally approve an appropriation 

for making long-needed improvements to the school. Burton, in arguing for the appropriation, described the school’s 

classrooms as being in a “scandalous condition.”1056 Also 

through Senator Burton’s eff orts, the Senate in August 1945 

approved a joint resolution calling for an investigation of the 

entire page system.1057

The following March, the Joint Committee on the 

Reorganization of Congress reported that its hearings had 

“developed much evidence that the present [page] scholastic 

facilities provided in the basement of the Capitol are not only 

unhealthful but extremely ill-adapted to use as classrooms.” 

Th e Committee’s report suggested several alternative plans 

and strongly recommended that the time had come for Congress to change the page school system.1058

Role of the Committee

With passage of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, 

Congress for the fi rst time accepted responsibility for the 

schooling of its pages, and the old page school system was 

ended. Under the new organization, the Capitol Page School 

became a tuition-free school funded by Congress with pages 

no longer having to pay for their schooling. Th e act directed 

the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to 

enter into an arrangement with the District of Columbia 

Board of Education for the education of the congressional 

pages. It also included a requirement that reimbursement be 

made to the District for additional expenses incurred by its 

public school system in implementing the arrangement.1059

Initially, pages were bused to the YMCA in downtown 

Washington for classes until 1949, when the Page School 
282 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

was established on the third fl oor of the Th omas Jeff erson 

Building of the Library of Congress.1060

From 1947 until 1983, the Committee on House Administration, by virtue of its jurisdiction over funds spent by the 

House, was also responsible for review of the page education 

contracts with the Washington, D.C. Board of Education.

Reform of Page Program. Between January 3, 1947, 

when the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 became 

operative, and the elimination of the House Page Program in 

2011, the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration provided legislative oversight of the congressional page system. In exercising 

that authority, the Committee on House Administration 

considered a number of measures regarding congressional 

pages. Frequently, the Committee shared its interest in the 

page system with other committees which conducted special 

inquires of various aspects of the program.

Change in Age Requirements. During the 88th and 

89th Congresses (1963–1966), two separate congressional 

committees—the House Select Committee on Welfare and 

Education of Congressional Pages in 1964, and the Joint 

Committee on the Organization of the Congress in 1965—

studied the age requirements for pages, and housing and education of pages. Both Committees recommended changes in 

the age requirement. Th e House Select Committee advocated 

that all congressional page appointments be limited to either 

high school juniors and seniors or college age individuals. 

Th e Joint Committee called for the appointment of collegeage pages, a move that would have eliminated the need for 

a proposed residential page school.1061 Although no further 

action was taken on the idea of changing the age requirements 

at the time, subsequent decisions by the Committee on House 

Administration, together with advisory assistance from the 

House Democratic Patronage Committee, resulted in House 

page appointments being restricted to 11th and 12th graders 

(ages 16–18) beginning in January 1966.1062

When the House took up the age matter during its consideration of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 it 

voted to retain the existing age limitation of 16 to 18, with 

the additional requirement that pages could not be appointed 

to serve during a session of Congress which began after their 

18th birthday.1063

Discussion of Housing, Enhancement of Supervision. In January 1956, and again in early May 1957, the 

Committee on House Administration held hearings on measures relating to the appointment and supervision of Capitol 

pages, establishment of a page residence, provision for a page 

matron, and establishment of an academy for pages.1064 On 

May 21, 1959, and June 6, 1959, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Accounts held hearings on a bill providing for 

a page residence under the supervision of a Capitol Pages’ 

Residence Board.1065 Subsequently, in May 1965, the Subcommittee heard testimony regarding proposals on the housing 

and supervision of pages.1066

Not until the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, however, did Congress actually approve 

legislation authorizing the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), 

under joint supervision of the House and Senate Offi ce Building Commissions, to acquire property in the vicinity of the 

Capitol Complex on which could be constructed a building 

containing a dormitory and classrooms for congressional and 

Supreme Court pages. Th e act designated the facility the John 

W. McCormack Residential Page School.1067

Subsequently, funds were appropriated in the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1971 for the Architect of 

the Capitol to develop studies, and prepare preliminary plans 

and cost estimates for acquisition of a site and construction 

of a suitable dormitory, classrooms, and related facilities for 

pages.1068 Two years later, Congress used the Supplemental 

Appropriations Act for FY1973 to appropriate funds for the 

Architect to acquire property for a residential page school subject to approval of the House and Senate Building Commissions.1069 Although the House Offi ce Building Commission 

subsequently approved a site for construction of the school, 

its Senate counterpart did not.

In 1979, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel 

and Police and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration jointly formulated a fi rst-time contract with the 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 283

District of Columbia outlining provisions for the education of 

pages. As a consequence of these meetings there was mutual 

agreement that House and Senate offi cers needed statutory 

authority to carry-out shared responsibilities for the care 

and supervision of pages. Also, at the request of the House 

Doorkeeper, the Subcommittee approved a new job description and classifi cation for House page supervisors to include 

additional responsibilities for the off -duty hours of pages.1070 

A year earlier, with action still pending on a page residence and several other page-related issues, David Sharman, 

clerk of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, prepared a memorandum 

for Subcommittee Chairman Frank Annunzio of Illinois 

on how to resolve the most urgent and immediate needs of 

the program. Sharman concluded that the “most immediate 

and practicable approach for implementation of the actions 

proposed [for reorganizing the page system] would appear to 

be by way of directives from the Chairmen of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration to their respective offi cers.” Of 

course, the House and Senate Legal Counsels would fi rst 

have to agree that there were no legal impediments to such 

action, Sharman explained, without elaborating on what such 

impediments might be.1071 Subsequent legislative initiatives 

obviated Sharman’s administrative solution, but those adjustments did not materialize for another four years.

1982–1983 Reforms. Several reforms were instituted 

in the page program in the early 1980s, after 1982 news 

accounts reported accusations by two unidentifi ed pages of 

House Members having inappropriate sexual contact with 

pages. Later, following a House investigation, the two pages 

recanted their stories. In response to the allegations, the 

Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct conducted an 

intensive investigation of the charges. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., 

a former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who 

headed the inquiry, concluded that most of the allegations 

and rumors of misconduct by House Members “resulted 

either from out-and-out fabrication, overactive teenage imagination stimulated by conversations with a journalist, or teenage gossip, which [had] in virtually every case proven to be 

utterly inaccurate.”1072 Six months later, however, the House 

censured a member of the House, who admitted he had an 

aff air with a 17-year-old female page, and another House 

member, who was found to have had a relationship a decade 

earlier with a 17-year-old male page.1073

A separate examination charged with reviewing the 

“page system in all its aspects including whether it should 

be continued, the need for supervised housing or improved 

education” was ordered by Speaker Th omas P. O’Neill, Jr. of 

Massachusetts in July 1982. Th e Speaker’s Commission on 

Pages held fi ve days of hearings during July and August of 

that year before issuing its report on August 16. Th e Speaker’s 

Commission concluded that pages were “essential to the 

offi cial functioning of Congress and that service as a Page 

[was] a uniquely valuable experience to those selected.” Th ey 

had performed their “service admirably, but under conditions which need[ed] improvement.”1074 Several of the Commission’s recommendations, which dealt primarily with the 

ages, supervision, and education of pages, were subsequently 

adopted by the House.

In the aftermath of the so-called page scandal, the House 

on November 30, 1982, established the House Page Board “to 

ensure that the page program is conducted in a manner that is 

consistent with the effi cient functioning of the House and the 

welfare of the pages.” Th e Board, which was established by a 

resolution ( H.Res. 611, 97th Congress, 1981–1982) off ered by 

Majority Leader James C. Wright, consists of two Members 

of the House appointed by the Speaker, one Member of the 

House appointed by the Minority Leader, the House Clerk, 

the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol. 

Th e House Doorkeeper was also a member of the Board until 

that position was eliminated in 1996. Th e Board is charged 

with ensuring the “welfare of pages,” and is authorized “to 

proscribe such regulations as may be necessary.”1075 Initially, the 

Board was chaired by Joseph Minish, a member of the Committee on House Administration. Early in 1983, the House 

approved a resolution ( H.Res. 64, 98th Congress, 1983–1984) 

sponsored by Minish, which established a revolving fund for 
284 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

administration of a House page residence school and a page 

meal program.1076 

Subsequently, two other page-related resolutions 

sponsored by Representative Minish also were passed by 

the House. Th e fi rst (H.Res. 279, 98th Congress, 1983), 

restricted admission to the House Page School to pages 

only. Other minor employees, who worked for Members 

and committees, were prohibited from attending the school. 

Th e resolution was necessary, Minish explained, “to clear 

up questions that had arisen concerning this policy.” Minor 

employees had “in the past made page education more complex because they often were younger than the pages and 

were here for only a short time. Consequently, the resolution 

[was] an important part of the Page Board’s commitment to 

provide our pages with a quality formal education.”1077 Th e 

second resolution (H.Res. 234, 98th Congress), allowed only 

high school juniors to be appointed as House pages. Th e 

full Committee on House Administration met on June 29, 

1983, and voted unanimously to favorably report the latter 

measure. H.Res. 234 passed the House the same day.1078

Congress also established a House Page Residence Hall 

and set curfews for pages in early 1983. Previously, pages 

were required to fi nd their own housing and provide their 

own meals.1079

During the summer of 1983 a number of important steps 

were taken to establish a House Page School. A principal, an 

administrative assistant, and six instructors were hired; the 

House Page School facilities in the Library of Congress were 

renovated, and the facilities were furnished. Th e House Page 

School opened on September 6, 1983, and gained accreditation by the Middle School Association in January 1984. Th e 

personnel positions at the Page School had been created by 

Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on 

Personnel and Police and subsequently approved by the full 

Committee several months earlier.1080

Th e House Page Board, in its fi nal report of December 11, 1984, noted several signifi cant improvements in 

the page education program during the school’s fi rst year 

including: (1) dramatic increases in S.A.T. scores, school 

attendance, average G.P.A. of entering students; (2) receipt 

of credit by pages for the for their work experience as pages; 

(3) establishment of a Summer Page Education Program; 

(4) establishment of a sustained relationship with the home 

schools of pages; (5) expansion of the school’s language and 

mathematics courses; and (6) an increase in educational 

experience of instructors (all now having a minimum of a 

Master’s Degree).1081

Between 1983 and the opening of the 104th Congress, on 

January 4, 1995, the Doorkeeper of the House was responsible for the pages and the administration of the House page 

program. When the position of Doorkeeper was abolished 

in January 1995, responsibility for the pages was assumed 

by the Clerk of the House.1082 During the 99th Congress 

(1984–1985) and again in the 101st Congress (1988–1989), 

the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police considered and 

approved requests from the Doorkeeper for additional temporary page positions, a revision in the job description of the 

Director of the Page Resident Hall, and the reclassifi cation 

of positions in the Page School.1083

In 1999, Congress approved a $3.76 million appropriation “to renovate and furnish the House-owned property at 

501 First Street S.E., for the purpose of relocating a dormitory 

necessary to accommodate the House pages.” Previously, the 

pages had occupied “two fl oors at the O’Neill House Building 

which had been converted to dormitory space.” Th e move to 

First Street was necessitated after an “audit conducted by the 

House Inspector General . . . revealed fi re safety issues.” Also, 

the Architect of the Capitol had “long held that the building 

was not structurally suited for its current use.” Appropriators concluded that the “facilities at 501 First Street [were] 

suited for conversion to dormitory space.” Th e “building was 

originally constructed as a residence hall,” and the “basic 

mechanical and life safety features of the building [were] 

satisfactory and within the various regulations that govern 

comparable applications.”1084

Under Rule X, clause 1(j)(3), the Committee on House 

Administration in the 111th Congress had jurisdiction over 

the page program by virtue of its oversight role over employBEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 285

ees of the offi cers of the House and the internal administrative operations of the Chamber. Th e Committee also 

served an advisory role in appraisal of the page program 

through the audits and operational reviews of the House 

Inspector General, whose policies are determined by the 

Committee. Day-to-day management of the page program, 

House Page School, and House Page Dormitory continue 

to be the responsibility of the Clerk, who is one of the fi ve 

members of the House Page Board. Th e House Committee 

on Appropriations alone had the authority to appropriate 

funds for the page system, upon conducting fi nancial oversight of the page program through its annual hearings on 

appropriation requests.

Discontinuation of the House Page Program. In the 

110th Congress (2007–2008), at the request of then House 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner, 

the House inspector general (IG) conducted an inquiry into 

the supervision and operation of the House Page Residence 

Hall, and subsequently issued a confi dential report recommending changes. In 2008, an independent study, conducted 

by consultants to the House, was conducted. In response to 

the fi ndings of those eff orts, the House implemented new 

policies to enhance the safety and supervision of the pages 

and oversight of the page program. Th ese changes followed 

investigations of allegations related to the page program 

participants, including the exchange of inappropriate communications between a Member of the House and former 

pages,1085 and of misbehavior by a few pages in the 109th and 

110th Congresses.

A follow-up review of the page program was carried 

out in the summer of 2010 by the same independent consultants. According to House leaders, concerns raised in 2008, 

including costs and the need for the program, remained. In 

August 2011, Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader 

Nancy Pelosi announced the termination of the House page 

program eff ective August 31. In a dear colleague letter, the 

leaders cited both changes in technology obviating the need 

for most page services, and the program’s costs as reasons to 

discontinue the program.1086

Regulating Unoffi cial Member Caucuses and 

Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs)

Introduction

Beginning in the mid-1970s, the Committee on House 

Administration took the fi rst in a series of steps to regulate 

numerous unoffi cial Member groups and caucuses that had 

formed in the House of Representatives.1087 In subsequent 

years, such groups—made up of lawmakers representing the 

same region of the country or sharing some common attribute, 

interest, or policy goal—would be known as Legislative Service 

Organizations (LSOs) and later, Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs). At the time, however, they were known only 

by generic terms such as ‘caucuses,’ ‘coalitions,’ or ‘ad-hoc task 

forces.’ Th e committee’s eff orts over two decades to establish 

clear rules governing such Member-created unoffi cial organizations were taken in response to a rapid proliferation of such 

groups on Capitol Hill and a growing concern that such entities 

might not fully comply (or appear to comply) with the letter 

and spirit of House rules relating to confl ict of interest, responsible use of taxpayer funds, and the integrity of the legislative 

process. Between 1977 and 1995, the Committee would act 

often in a bipartisan fashion, to bring such unoffi cial entities 

under the formal supervision of the House and to regularize 

and professionalize their operations.

1970s: Th e Growth of Unoffi cial Member Groups

Prior to 1970, there were only three unoffi cial caucuses organized to provide legislative support to Members of the House: 

the Democratic Study Group (DSG), made up of self-described 

liberal House Democrats; the House Wednesday Group, a 

coalition of moderate Republicans; and the Members of Congress for Peace Th rough Law, a bicameral caucus focused on 

the issues of arms control and foreign policy. Beginning in the 

1970s, however, the number of such caucuses exploded refl ecting the broad ideological, regional, industrial, and legislative 

interests of Members and pushed the number of unoffi cial 

Member groups to nearly 50, with participation by more than 

400 Representatives by the end of the decade.1088

Th e proliferation of such unoffi cial entities was no doubt 

spurred on by the rise of “single-issue” voters outside Congress 
286 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

and a desire by newer Members inside the institution for 

opportunities to aff ect policy—opportunities their committee assignments and junior status did not aff ord them. Unoffi cial caucuses helped Members join together in common 

legislative purpose and demonstrate to constituencies their 

interest in, and advocacy for, particular issues. 

Many unoffi cial groups also fi lled a legitimate need that 

existed among less senior Members for information about 

policy and the legislative schedule. While party and committee leaders always knew what was occurring in the chamber, such information was not always available to, or shared 

widely with, the rank-and-fi le. While in previous eras, junior 

Members of Congress might have been content to wait quietly 

for leaders to issue them marching orders, the new breed of 

Members elected in the 1970s wanted to know about, and 

be involved in, legislative activities at a high level. Unoffi cial 

caucuses like DSG and the House Wednesday Group kept 

Members informed on complex policy issues and helped 

prepare them for action in committee and on the fl oor. As 

one Member observed: 

Caucuses were formed to fulfill needs Members felt were not otherwise being met. Overall, 

caucuses . . . have strengthened the House and 

enabled Members to more efficiently carry out 

their offi cial duties.1089

One newspaper account noted this rapid increase in the 

number and diversity of such unoffi cial Member groups in 

the institution, observing: 

Caucuses are a recent phenomenon on Capitol 

Hill. . . . there are caucuses for women and Hispanics, shipyards and steel, textiles and coal. Th ere 

are caucuses for solar energy, mushrooms, the arts, 

jewelry manufacturers, the Irish, the Sun Belt, New 

Englanders, westerners, civil servants, senior citizens, suburbia, rural America, liberal Republicans 

and conservative Republicans, and Democrats of 

every stripe.1090

Some of the caucuses and unoffi cial groups which 

formed in the 1970s were small and loosely structured—

nothing more than voluntary associations of like-minded 

House Members, having no staff , offi ce space, or budget. 

Others were large and well organized, employing separate 

staff , creating and distributing legislative analyses and 

other material, and occupying space in the House offi ce 

buildings. 

While caucuses and other unoffi cial entities had arguably formed in response to a legitimate need, as informal 

entities, not provided for in chamber rules, they raised a 

number of diffi cult questions which cried out for clarifi cation. 

Of concern to many was that fact that the activities of some 

unoffi cial groups were paid for with a mix of offi cial House 

funds supplied by Members’ dues and, money from outside 

special interest groups and individuals.

Both the standing rules of the House and federal law 

barred individual Members of Congress from accepting 

money from corporations or trade groups interested in legislation; Caucuses, however, were not specifi cally barred from 

accepting outside funds. A similar loophole permitted unoffi cial caucuses to accept money from foreign governments, 

something Members of Congress clearly could not do as 

individuals.

The fact that some unofficial Member groups were 

fi nanced by money from outside interests raised concerns 

that the groups might act as in-house “lobbying shops” which, 

in light of their physical proximity to Members and staff , 

could exercise (or appear to exercise), an unfair infl uence on 

the legislative process. One reporter raised just this potential 

appearance of confl ict of interest, noting of one of the larger 

unoffi cial caucuses:

The Travel and Tourism Caucus, for example, 

works as the eyes and ears of the tourist industry on 

Capitol Hill. House records show it received more 

than $480,000 during the last 18 months from 

the giants of that industry: Holiday Inns, Howard 

Johnson [Hotels], Pan American Airways, Eastern 

Airlines, Greyhound [Bus], Trailways Bus, Hilton 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 287

[Hotels], Sheraton [Hotels], Resorts International 

and Creaser’s Palace Hotel among them.1091

Another observer argued that some unoffi cial Member 

organizations had become “lobbying groups financed by 

industry or special interests and thinly cloaked in the imprimatur of Congress.”1092

In short, a proliferation of increasingly powerful but 

unoffi cial and unregulated Member groups were operating 

in multiple legal grey areas, areas the Committee on House 

Administration judged to have the potential to skirt the letter 

and spirit of House rules and federal law or, at the very least, 

create an appearance that might injure the reputation of the 

House and its Members.

1977: Th e Commission on Administrative Review

Th e fi rst attempts by the Committee on House Administration to defi ne the operating parameters of informal Member 

groups and caucuses occurred as an outgrowth of the work of 

the 1977 Commission on Administrative Review.

In 1976, Representative Wayne Hays, chairman of 

the Committee on House Administration, was accused of 

employing a woman on the professional staff of the Committee who did little or no work for her congressional pay. 

Chairman Hays eventually resigned his congressional seat 

over the scandal. Concern over these revelations involving 

the institution’s “housekeeping” committee and over the 

operations of the chamber in other contexts contributed to 

the creation of a commission to investigate House administration and ethics issues.

On July 1, 1976, the House of Representatives voted 

380-30 for H.Res. 1368, which established a Commission 

on Administrative Review. Th is resolution directed the Commission to make a complete review of the administrative 

operations of the House of Representatives, its personnel policies, accounting procedures, including Member allowances 

and record-keeping practices. Th e 15-member commission 

was chaired by Representative David R. Obey, and for that 

reason, the commission is often popularly referred to as the 

“Obey Commission.”1093

Th e commission spent more than a year gathering 

data on a wide variety of aspects of the administration of 

the House, undertaking several surveys of Members and 

staff , and hiring an outside consulting fi rm to conduct 

another survey. As an outgrowth of the Obey Commission’s study, a series of recommendations relating to unoffi cial member groups and caucuses was included in a larger 

package of reforms reported by the Committee on House 

Administration in a resolution, H.Res. 766, on September 

20, 1977.1094

Th e primary goal of these recommendation was to institute accountability for the spending of taxpayer dollars by 

those unoffi cial groups receiving House funds. As recommended, any caucus of Members using publicly-fi nanced 

resources of the House of Representatives or its Members, 

such as Clerk Hire funds, offi ce space, or offi cial equipment, 

and which also received monetary assistance from sources 

outside the House, would be required to fi le an annual report 

with the Committee on House Administration. Among other 

information, the report was to include a list of all receipts and 

disbursements aggregating $100 or more during the year and 

the names of all caucus employees.

Th e Committee’s recommendation further provided that 

a caucus which met certain criteria could request certifi cation 

as an official Legislative Service Organization (LSO). As 

a condition of receiving this certifi cation, Member groups 

would be prohibited from receiving monetary or in-kind contributions from sources outside the House. Groups designated 

as LSOs would, however, be permitted to establish Clerk Hire 

accounts under the supervision of the Chief Financial Offi cer 

of the House. Members would also be allowed to allocate a 

portion of their Clerk Hire allowance to such accounts from 

which the salaries of LSO staff could be paid. 

Ultimately, the proposed reforms contained in H.Res. 

766 were never considered by the House because on October 12, 1977, by a vote of 160-252, the House rejected the 

procedural resolution which would have brought the reform 

package to the fl oor.1095
288 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

1979: First Successful Regulation of Unoffi cial 

Member Groups

While the Obey Commission reforms were not considered 

in 1977, the Committee on House Administration remained 

interested in addressing issues related to unoffi cial Member 

groups. On July 18, 1979, the Committee, acting on the 

recommendations of its Subcommittee on Accounts, adopted 

a committee order which promulgated the fi rst successful 

regulations governing the conduct of House caucuses and 

unofficial groups. These regulations mirrored in part the 

Obey Commission recommendations previously reported by 

the Committee, but not acted upon by the House.

Th e Committee’s July 18 order applied only to some 

unoffi cial groups, those which were designated as “Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs),” which the order formally 

defi ned as:

. . . any organization, committee, commission, 

coalition, caucus or similar group consisting 

in whole or in part of Members of the House, 

designed primarily to provide legislative services 

and assistance to the members of such organization, 

which has no offi cial status under the Rules of the 

House or of the majority or minority caucuses, but 

receives, directly or indirectly, support from the 

House of Representatives and such support shall 

include, but not be limited to, disbursements from 

a Member’s Clerk Hire Allowance or Allowance 

for Offi cial Expenses, offi ce space controlled by the 

House Offi ce Building Commission or furniture, 

supplies or equipment.1096

The Committee order established a monthly certification process whereby those working for LSOs and paid 

from a Member’s Clerk Hire Allowance could only receive 

their salary if the identifi cation of their LSO, the amount of 

their salary, their physical work location, the regular performance of their duties, and the relationship of the employee 

to any current Member of Congress, was certifi ed each pay 

period by the Member chairing the LSO. Th e order further 

required each LSO to submit to the Clerk of the House a 

semi-annual report including the LSOs name, address, offi -

cers and employees, a summary of the funds received and 

disbursed by the organization during the reporting period, 

and a disclosure of the specifi c source or use of any receipts 

or disbursements in excess of $1,000.

1981: Additional LSO Reforms Enacted

In the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the Committee on House 

Administration Acted again to regulate LSOs. In early 1981, 

Committee Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins directed the 

Committee’s professional staff to undertake a comprehensive 

study of Legislative Service Organizations, and to evaluate 

the effi cacy of the regulations that had been adopted governing their conduct. In response to this directive, the panel’s 

professional staff prepared a draft reform proposal which was 

circulated for comment on September 11, 1981, among committee members and among the LSOs themselves.

Th e committee’s actions were prompted by continued 

concern, both on and off Capitol Hill, that not enough had 

been done to regulate LSOs or eliminate the appearance 

of impropriety in their operations. In the Fall, the Better 

Government Association, a private government watchdog 

group, released the fi ndings of a four-month investigation 

of congressional caucuses which raised questions about 

possible violations of federal law and House rules by some 

groups. “By forming a caucus,” said Peter Manikas, head of 

the association, “legislators are permitted to do everything 

that they are prohibited from doing by the House ethics 

code.”1097 In fact, the Better Government Association study 

documented that in 1980 alone, LSOs had raised more 

than a million dollars from corporations, private individuals, labor unions, and other sources and co-mingled those 

funds with taxpayer monies. In at least once documented 

case, an LSO has solicited and received donations from a 

foreign government.

In response to the work of the professional staff , at a 

regular business meeting on September 22, 1981, the Committee on House Administration formally established an Ad 

Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations. Th e 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 289

Ad Hoc Subcommittee was directed to look into questions 

about LSOs, particularly whether they were in compliance 

with the rules of the House, and whether a limitation or 

outright prohibition should be imposed on the receipt of 

outside money by such organizations. Th is sub-panel was 

made up of Representatives William R. Ratchford, Al Swift, 

and Gary A. Lee.

Th e Ad Hoc Subcommittee was directed by the full 

committee to complete its investigation within thirty days. 

Th e Members quickly discovered that while the belief was 

generally held among the LSOs and outside groups that the 

existing regulations were inadequate, there was no immediate consensus on what changes ought to be instituted. Some 

observers supported banning unofficial groups entirely. 

Others, including Representative Bill Frenzel, the ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, 

argued that LSOs should be barred from receiving all private funds. In conducting their deliberations, the Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee received testimony from individual Members 

affi liated with LSOs, from the House Minority Leader, from 

representatives of outside good government groups and from 

the Chairman of the House Committee on Standards of 

Offi cial Conduct, all who expressed views on how to regulate non-offi cial Member organizations.

Despite the initial wide disparity in views, the Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee was able to reach consensus on several core 

issues. On October 21, 1981, by voice vote, the Committee on 

House Administration adopted regulations based on its recommendations. Most signifi cantly, these regulations codifi ed 

the fundamental idea that LSOs, as their name implied, were 

groupings of Members voluntarily pooling their resources to 

pursue a common legislative goal. As such, the organizations 

were to be considered extensions of Members’ offi ces, and be 

generally bound by the same rules and regulations governing 

Members’ use of congressional fi nancial allowances.

Under the 1981 regulations, LSOs would be forced 

to make an “irrevocable election,” stating whether they 

intended to register or re-register as an LSO. Groups which 

did register as an LSO would have to cease outside fundraising and terminate all private support by January 1, 1982. 

If, on the other hand, an LSO wanted to continue to raise 

or accept private money, they would have to vacate the 

House offi ce buildings and stop using congressional funds 

to pay staff .

The regulations, as adopted, also established stricter 

reporting requirements on LSO spending, lowering the 

threshold for disclosure to expenditures in excess of $200 

during a reporting period and requiring quarterly, rather 

than biannual, fi lings. 

In response to a letter from Chairman Hawkins 

announcing the new regulations, 25 of the 26 existing LSOs 

indicated they would elect to continue as LSOs under the 

new, stricter regulations.1098 

Continuing Concerns in the 1980s About LSOs

Although the 1981 regulations were generally viewed as providing signifi cant reform, as the 1980s wore on, concerns 

about LSOs continued among many Members both on, and 

off the Committee. Many concerns centered on the existing 

and potential future cost to taxpayers of LSO operations. 

In response to these concerns, the Committee on House 

Administration imposed a hard ceiling on the total number 

of LSOs it would permit to be registered with the House. One 

Member estimated this ceiling to be 30 LSOs.1099

Others Members remained worried about what they 

characterized as LSOs’ potential to fragment policymaking 

and dilute the power of party leaders and the standing committee system. Still other Members focused their attention 

on developments which had occurred subsequent to, and in 

some instances, in response to, the adoption of the Committee’s 1981 LSO regulations. While, as has been noted, most 

LSOs had chosen to re-register under the 1981 guidelines, 

and thus renounce the raising and receipt of private funds, 

several LSOs had created outside affi liated private institutes 

which did raise private money. Some were concerned that 

LSOs having a close affiliation with such outside private 

institutes might defeat one of the 1981 regulation’s fundamental goals—to eliminate the co-mingling of public and 

private funds.
290 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

At a March 11, 1987 meeting of the Committee 

on House Administration, Chairman Frank Annunzio 

announced the formation of another Task Force on Legislative Service Organizations to review the regulations and 

procedures applicable to LSOs and to determine their eff ectiveness. Th e Task Force was directed to report back to the full 

Committee no later than September 1987 with any fi ndings 

or proposed recommendations. Representatives Jim Bates, 

Mary Rose Oakar, and Pat Roberts were appointed to serve 

on the Task Force.1100

On September 16, 1987, the deadline for receiving the 

Task Force report was extended. A preliminary report was 

received by the full Committee in January 1988, and the fi nal 

Task Force recommendations were submitted on September 

14, 1988. Among the recommendations made, were that 

LSOs should fi le more complete disclosures of their expenditures, should fi le these disclosures on a monthly (instead of 

quarterly) basis, and should be assigned offi ce space in House 

Annex II, instead of in the more desirable locations in the 

three main House offi ce buildings. 

In response, Chairman Annunzio instructed the Committee professional staff to prepare draft legislative language 

amending the 1981 regulations as suggested by the Task Force 

and to circulate the draft for comment among Members. No 

further action was taken by the full committee. According 

to that year’s committee activity report, the task force report 

was “taken under advisement.”1101

1990s: New Calls for Reform and New Regulations

As the 1990s dawned, Congress was beset by a string of 

high-profi le institutional scandals, beginning in 1989 with 

the resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright, followed in 

1990 and 1991 by allegations that a small group of Senators 

had improperly infl uenced federal regulators on behalf of a 

campaign contributor. Additional public scandals relating 

to management problems at the House Bank and the House 

Post Offi ce received widespread media attention and led to 

the resignation of the House Sergeant at Arms and the House 

Postmaster. Against this backdrop, calls that the institutional 

entities and mechanisms of Congress, including LSOs, be 

subjected to examination and reform were heard both on 

and off Capitol Hill.

In light of these calls for change, another Committee on House Administration Task Force was created in 

1990 to examine LSOs and report recommended reforms 

to the Committee. Included in the 1990 Task Force recommendations were that LSOs be audited annually by the 

General Accounting Offi ce (since renamed the Government Accountability Offi ce), that the services of House 

Information Systems (H.I.S.) services be made available 

to LSOs, that a study be conducted to determine how to 

provide retirement benefi ts to LSO staff , and end once and 

for all the practice of mingling public and private funds. Th e 

Task Force also suggested that the Committee on House 

Administration dedicate at least one staff er as a liaison to 

the LSOs. As with the 1987 Task Force, the full committee 

never acted on these proposals.

Still, calls for reform persisted, most notably from minority party members of the Committee on House Administration and the House. At a May 21, 1992 meeting of the full 

Committee on House Administration, Chairman Charlie 

Rose agreed to examine the operation of federally funded 

House caucuses after Republican Members on the panel 

asked for increased supervision of the groups.

Calls for reform were not limited to the Committee, however. On June 24, 1992, the House rejected an amendment 

to H.R. 5427, the FY 1993 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, off ered by Representative Pat Roberts, a Committee 

member and leading critic of LSOs, which would have prohibited the use of funds in Members’ Clerk Hire and offi cial 

expenses accounts to pay any of the costs of legislative service 

organizations. Representative Roberts argued that the 1981 

LSO reforms, which tried to solve the problems at the time 

by making LSOs rely entirely on taxpayer (offi cial) funds, had 

in fact, led to more spending of taxpayer dollars, and made 

some LSOs create closely-aligned private foundations which 

were still able to coordinate with LSO and co-mingle funds. 

Representative Roberts also expressed additional concerns that 

House rules relating to nepotism and dual employment of staff 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 291

did not apply to LSOs.1102 Other Members expressed concern 

that some LSOs had established outside, interest bearing bank 

accounts in which they had deposited offi cial funds, something 

Members were not permitted to do.1103

Although it rejected the Roberts amendment, a provision in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 

conference report for the FY 1993 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill approved by the House directed the General 

Accounting Offi ce to develop “accounting standards and 

guidelines” for the House LSO “in cooperation with” the 

Committee on House Administration. 

In February, 1993, Republicans on the Committee on 

House Administration again raised the issue of LSOs, asking 

Chairman Rose for detailed information on the progress of 

the new accounting standards for legislative service organizations (LSOs) which, by law, the General Accounting Offi ce 

and the Committee were ordered to develop.1104 In a letter 

to Chairman Rose, the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, Representative Bill Th omas, 

along with Representative Pat Roberts, demanded “to know 

the structure, status, and timetable for development of the 

accounting standards.”1105

Additional demands were made. Raising the issue of 

the interest-bearing accounts established by some LSOs, 

Representative Th omas, in a March 10 letter to Comptroller 

General Charles Bowsher, argued that “potentially millions of 

taxpayer dollars have been placed in reserve accounts without 

oversight. Th ese reserve accounts may be lost unless a quick 

GAO review takes place.”1106

In response to these repeated calls for reform, and after 

considerable study, based in part on the work of the 1992 

Committee Task Force, on August 5, 1993, Th e Committee on House Administration adopted signifi cantly stricter 

fi nancial accounting rules for legislative service organizations 

and opened the door to annual audits of the groups by the 

General Accounting Offi ce.1107 As one journalist noted of the 

Committee’s action:

Th e voice vote to approve the new regulations 

and a new handbook for LSOs ended weeks of 

acrimonious debate between the executive directors of the taxpayer-funded LSOs and the bipartisan staff working on the new rules.1108

Under the new Committee regulations, LSOs had to 

fi le proposed budgets starting in January 1994, including a 

statement of purpose and a list of all employees and members. 

In addition, LSOs employees would immediately be subject 

to House ethics rules, and LSOs were henceforth required 

to conduct all of their fi nancial activities through the House 

Finance Office, including payroll and expense vouchers. 

Finally, the new regulations instituted requirements directing 

the LSOs to fi le annual year-end statements disclosing cashon-hand, expenses and receipts.

While these regulations constituted the House’s strongest action to reform LSOs in over a decade, many Republicans on the Committee and in the House were not satisfi ed, 

calling for even stricter oversight, and increasingly, an outright ban on the use of taxpayer funds by LSOs.

1995: Republican Majority Eliminates LSOs

In the 1994 congressional elections, Republicans won a 

majority of seats in both chambers of Congress, ending four 

decades of Democratic House majority. As part of a sweeping 

series of institutional changes embraced by the new majority, 

the House Republican Conference voted in December 1994 

to amend chamber rules in the upcoming 104th Congress 

(1995–1996) to prohibit taxpayer funding for LSOs. Th is 

recommendation was carried out as part of the opening day 

rules package adopted by the House.1109

On February 8, 1995, the Committee on House Oversight adopted formal regulations governing informal Member 

organizations created to pursue common legislative goals, 

organizations the Committee identifi ed as Congressional 

Member Organizations (CMOs). Under these new provisions, CMOs had to register with the Committee on House 

Oversight by March 1, 1995 and each Congress thereafter. 

Under the new structure, Members were still permitted to form caucuses and informal Member groups, but the 

entities would no longer be allowed to occupy separate House 
292 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

offi ce space or employ separate staff . Unlike LSOs, CMOs 

could not receive money from Member’s offi cial accounts, 

although they could, share some official resources. These 

requirement continue in force today.1110

According to a 1997 Committee account, the change 

made by the House relating to unofficial member groups 

reduced congressional “staff by 96 positions and [set] the 

course to return over $1 million to the U.S. Treasury.”1111

Endnotes

1 See, for example: Nelson W. Polsby, “Th e Institutionalization of 

the U.S. House of Representatives,” Th e American Political Science 

Review, vol. 62, Mar. 1968, pp. 144–168; and David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House, Th e University of Chicago 

Press, Chicago: 1991. 

2 Th ese include, for example, the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress (78th–79th; 89th–90th and 102nd–103rd Congresses); Joint Committee on Congressional Operations (91st–95th

Congresses); the House Select Committee on Congressional Operations (95th Congress); the Commission on Administrative Review 

(94th Congress).

3 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House of Representatives 

in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, report to accompany H. Res. 

202, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 110-29 (Washington: GPO, 

2007), p. 4.

4 H. Res. 988 (93rd Cong.).

5 Th e resolution is reprinted in: U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Policies, Precedents, and Procedures Including 

Related Statistical Information (Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), committee 

print, 89th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965), p. 67.

6 Rep. Howard Smith, “Creating a Select Committee on Small 

Business,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, Feb. 16, 1965, p. 2701.

7 Ibid.

8 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Policies, 

Precedents, and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information 

(Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), committee print, 89th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965), p. 526.

9 See for example: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Regulations: Travel and Other Expenses of Committees and 

Members, January 1, 1970 (Revised), committee print, 91st Cong., 

1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1969), pp. 12–14 (Committee Studies 

and Investigations). 

10 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1151, sec. 110 (Oct. 26, 1970).

11 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 17–18.

12 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Expenses of Investigations and Studies to be Conducted by the 

Standing and Select Committees of the House, report to accompany 

H. Res. 115, together with Minority Views, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 97-11 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 168.

13 “Expenses of Committee on Armed Services,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, p. 3053.

14 “Committee on Banking and Currency,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 109, Mar. 6, 1963, p. 3525.

15 “Section-by-Section Analysis of House Rules Resolution,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 472.

16 S. Res. 479 (100th Cong.).

17 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 

79-1011 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 21.

18 Ibid., p. 20.

19 Ibid., p. 9.

20 Ibid., p. 20.

21 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 92, July 25, 1946, p. 10085.

22 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 834, ch. 753, sec. 202 (Aug. 2, 1946).

23 P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297 (July 12, 1974); and “Section-bySection Analysis of House Rules Resolution,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 472.

24 Provision is contained in: P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 834, ch.753, sec. 202 

(Aug. 2, 1946). For additional information on the employment of 

committee staff , see chapter on employment of staff for committees 

and Members.

25 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Expenses of Investigations and Studies to be Conducted by the 

Standing and Select Committees of the House, report to accompany 

H. Res. 115, together with Minority Views, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 97-11 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 162.

26 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, U.S. Congress, 

Providing Amounts for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House 

of Representatives in the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 104-74 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 6.

27 P.L. 103–283, 108 Stat. 1429 (July 22, 1994).

28 P.L. 104–53, 109 Stat. 519 (Nov. 19, 1995).

29 “Expenses of Committee on Armed Services,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, p. 3051.

30 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Expenses of Investigations and Studies to be Conducted by the 

Standing and Select Committees of the House, report to accompany H. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 293

Res. 115, together with Minority Views, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 97-11 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 85.

31 Ibid., p. 2.

32 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 17–18; 

“Providing for Expenses of Standing and Select Committees of 

the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 127, Mar. 25, 1981, p. 5228.

33 Ibid., p. 5238.

34 For press reports on the views of various Members regarding 

subsequent adjustments, see: Gabriel Kahn, “House Votes Overwhelmingly to Slash Committee Budgets, Staff by One-Th ird,” Roll 

Call, Mar. 16, 1995, pp. 1, 18; Ethan Wallison, “Panel Chairmen 

Want 11% Increase, Conservatives Aghast; Hastert, Th omas Seek 

Compromise,” Roll Call, Mar. 8, 1999, pp. 1, 20; Lauren W. Whittington and Ben Pershing, “After the Revolution, GOP Retreats 

on Cuts,” Roll Call, Mar. 29, 2001, pp. 1, 24; and Suzanne Nelson, 

“House Panels Seek Big Funding Boosts,” Roll Call, Mar. 12, 2003, 

pp. 1, 19. See also CRS Report RL32794, House Committee Funding Requests and Authorizations, 104th–112th Congresses, by Matthew 

Eric Glassman.

35 House Rule XI, clause 1(b)(1), which was fi rst incorporated into 

the Rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 

authorizes all committees to conduct investigations and studies 

and incur travel expenses in connection with them, eliminating the 

need for the related authorization columns. U.S. Congress, House, 

Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Ninth Congress, compiled by 

John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 

108-241 (Washington: GPO, 2005), sec. 788.

36 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 133, Jan. 6, 

1987, p. 7.

37 H. Res 5 (100th Cong.); and H. Res. 6 (104th Cong.).

38 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 

1995, p. 462.

39 See for example: H. Res. 133 (109th Cong.), and “Providing 

Amounts for Continuing Expenses of Standing and Select Committees of the House From Apr. 1, 2005, Th rough Apr. 30, 2005,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 151, Mar. 8, 2005, p. H1001.

40 H. Res. 91 (105th Cong.); and H. Res. 101 (106th Cong.).

41 H. Res. 387 (105th Cong.); and H. Res. 38 (106th Cong.).

42 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850, Jan. 2, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999). 

43 “Expenses of Committee on Armed Services,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, p. 3055.

44 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1150, sec. 110(c) (Oct. 26, 1970).

45 “Providing Funds for Committee on House Administration,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 119, Mar. 20, 1973, p. 8632.

46 David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1991), p. 31.

47 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. House Rules and 

Manual, H. Doc. 94-663, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1977), p. 468.

48 “Providing for Expenses of Standing and Select Committees of 

the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 127, Mar. 25, 1981, p. 5207.

49 “Rules of the House” [H. Res. 6 (104th Cong.)], Congressional 

Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 472.

50 Committee activity reports use the title Committees’ Congressional Handbook. Th e document available on the Committee’s website 

at this writing uses the title Committee Handbook. See http://cha.

house.gov/handbooks/committee-handbook.

51 John E. Owens, “Extreme Advocacy Leadership in the PreReform House: Wright Patman and the House Banking and Currency Committee,” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 15, April 

1985, pp. 187–206. 

52 Testimony of Wright Patman, Justifi cation for the Appropriation 

of the Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearings, 88th Cong., 

Feb. 7, 1963 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 88 

HHad-T.6), p. 1.

53 Authorizing resolutions and funding were handled separately 

for the Housing Subcommittee and the full Committee.

54 “Committee on Banking and Currency,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 109, Mar. 6, 1963, p. 3523.

55 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Funds 

Authorized and Expended for Studies and Investigations by Standing, Special, and Select Committees of the House of Representatives,

79th Congress through the 89th Congress, Jan. 1945–Dec. 1966, 

committee print, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1967).

56 “Committee on Banking and Currency,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 111, Feb. 24, 1965, p. 3425.

57 Th is consideration preceded the current omnibus resolution 

process. “Expenses for Studies and Investigations to be Conducted 

by the Committee on Education and Labor,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 109, Mar. 6, 1963, pp. 3525–3531.

58 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Contracts, Report of the Special Investigation into 

Expenditures During the 89th Congress by the House Committee on 

Education and Labor and the Clerk-hire Status of Y. Marjorie Flores 

(Mrs. Adam Clayton Powell), 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 89-2349 

(Washington: GPO, 1967). 

59 H. Res. 198 (73rd Cong.).
294 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

60 “Committee on Un-American Activities,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, p. 3065.

61 “Committee on Un-American Activities,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, pp. 3063-3078.

62 Th e Committee’s name was changed to Internal Security pursuant to H. Res. 89 (91st Cong.).

63 CRS Report 88-203 GOV, Abolition of the House Internal Security Committee, by Paul Rundquist, p. 13. See also the Ashbrook 

motion to recommit H.Res 267 (the annual committee funding 

resolution) with instructions: Congressional Record, vol. 121, Mar. 

21, 1975, pp. 7921, 7924–7927.

64 2 U.S.C. § 57; H. Res. 457 was agreed to July 21, 1971, “Expenditures From Contingent Funds for Allowances to Members, 

Offices, and Standing Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 

117, July 21, 1971, pp. 26446–26451, and enacted into permanent 

law by P.L. 92-184, 85 Stat. 636 (Dec. 15, 1971).

65 2 U.S.C. § 57. Th e Committee’s jurisdiction also applies to all 

aspects of offi cial mail of the House (2 U.S.C. § 59e; P.L. 101-520, 

Nov. 5, 1990 (104 Stat. 2278). 

66 For example, on July 14, 2010, the committee adopted a resolution allowing funds from the MRA to be used for online advertisements (Committee Resolution #111-9). 

67 Th is document superseded the Guide to Equipment Software 

and Related Services.

68 Directives were used by the Committee primarily from 1947 

until 1972, when they were replaced by Committee Orders. Th ese 

Orders are notifications to the House from the Committee of 

adjustments in Members’ offi cial allowances. Th e Committee was 

required to issue Orders in H. Res. 457, agreed to July 21, 1971, 

and enacted into permanent law by P.L. 92-184, 85 Stat. 636 (Dec. 

15, 1971).

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the 94th Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 94-1790 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 3.

70 H. Res. 687 (85th Cong.) was agreed to by the House on Sept. 

20, 1977. “Providing for District Offi ce Space for Members of the 

House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Sept. 20, 

1977, pp. 29962-29967. Its provisions were incorporated into P.L. 

95-391, 92 Stat. 778 (Sept. 30, 1978).

71 Committee Order No. 30, Committee on House Administration, Jan. 3, 1977, in 2 U.S.C. § 57. 

72 Committee Order No. 25, Committee on House Administration, Jan. 3, 1977, in 2 U.S.C. § 57. 

73 Committee Order No. 29, Committee on House Administration, Jan. 3, 1977, in 2 U.S.C. § 57.

74 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the 95th Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 95-1836 (Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 166.

75 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives, report to accompany 

H. Res. 287, H. Rept. 95-212, Part II, 95th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 1-2; “Providing for the Consideration 

of House Resolution 287, to Amend the Rules of the House of 

Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 

5885-5953. Its provisions were incorporated into P.L. 95-94, 91 

Stat. 668 (Aug. 5, 1977). An eff ort to reverse the prohibition was 

defeated later the same day.

76 Such items included those with a useful life in excess of the 

current term of the Member and with a residual value of more than 

$25 upon the expiration of the Member’s current term.

77 To qualify for eligibility, each non-legislative support organization had to be approved by the Committee. 

78 Committee Orders 35, 38, 39, and 40. These are reprinted 

within the notes for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

79 Committee Order No. 35. Th is Committee Order, as well as 

those in the following note, are reprinted within the notes for prior 

versions of 2 U.S.C. § 57.

80 Committee Orders No. 38, No. 39, and No. 40.

81 Committee Order No. 41, Committee on House Administration, Sept. 1, 1995, in 2 U.S.C. § 57. 

82 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives During the 112th Congress, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 

2011), p. 5. 

83 P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 519 (Nov. 19, 1995).

84 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1996, report to accompany H.R. 

1854, 104th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 104-141 (Washington: GPO, 

1995), p. 10.

85 Annual legislative branch appropriations bills with this language include P.L. 104-53 (Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act, 1996), P.L. 104-197 (Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act, 1997), P.L. 105-55 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

1998), P.L. 105-275 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

1999), P.L. 106-57 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2000), 

P.L. 106-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001), P.L. 107-

68 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002), P.L. 108-7 

(Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003), P.L. 108-83 

(Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004), P.L. 108-447 

(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005), P.L. 109-55 (Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Act, 2006), P.L. 110-161 (Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008), P.L. 111-8 (Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009), P.L. 111-68 (Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act, 2010), and P.L. 112-74 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 295

2012). Th e two long-term Continuing Resolutions (also known as 

CRs) enacted during this period—including P.L. 110-5 (Revised 

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007) and P.L. 112-10 

(FY2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act)—continued 

this language from prior years.

86 81st Congress, Records of the Committee on House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), National Archives, 

Washington, DC.

87 P.L. 81-118, 63 Stat. 222 (June 22, 1949).

88 P.L. 84-242, 69 Stat. 513 (Aug. 5, 1955).

89 P.L. 83-178, 67 Stat. 332 (Aug. 1, 1953), provided that the place 

of residence of Members within the districts they represent be considered home for income tax purposes, and that up to $3,000 in living expenses outside their congressional districts be tax deductible. 

90 Committee Order No. 21, Committee on House Administration, June 1, 1975, in 2 U.S.C. § 57. 

91 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating 

to Telephone and Telegraph Service and Clerk Hire for Members of 

the House of Representatives, report to accompany HR. 4583, 81st

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 81-577 (Washington: GPO, 1949); and 

P.L. 81-121, 63 Stat. 264-265 (June 23, 1949). 

92 P.L. 81-121, 63 Stat. 264-265 (June 23, 1949). Also, see letter from the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress to the Committee addressing telephone and telegraph allowances, Apr. 20, 1949, 81st Congress, Records of the Committee on 

House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), 

National Archives, Washington, DC.

93 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Committee on House Administration to Increase the Telephone 

and Telegraph Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives 

for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1951, report to accompany H. 

Res. 218, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 82-439 (Washington: GPO, 

1951); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Telephone and Telegraph Service for Members of the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.R. 3939, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

82-4409 (Washington: GPO, 1951); “Congressional Record,” May 

10, 1951, vol. 97, p. 5229.

94 P.L. 82-42, 65 Stat. 47 (May 29, 1951).

95 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of June 23, 1949, as Amended, With Respect to the Accumulated Balances of Telephone and Telegraph Accounts of members of 

the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.R. 8499, 82nd

Cong., 2nd sess, H. Rept. 2469 (Washington: GPO, 1952); and 

“Telephone and Telegram Accounts of members of the House of 

House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, July 3, 1952, vol. 

98, p. 9219; and P.L. 82-466, 66 Stat. 443, July 8, 1952.

96 “Removal of Monthly Limitations on Official Telephone 

Calls and Telegrams,” Congressional Record, Feb. 24, 1953, vol. 99, 

p.1357–1358; and P.L. 83-6, 67 Stat. 5 (Mar. 10, 1953). 

97 P.L. 84-422, 70 Stat. 31 (Feb., 1956); P.L. 85-289, 71 Stat. 614 

(Sept. 4, 1957); P.L. 86-340, 73 Stat. 605 (Sept. 21, 1959); and P.L. 

89-131, 79 Stat. 544 (Aug. 21, 1965).

98 H. Res. 161 was agreed to by the House on May 11, 1967. “Payment From the Contingent Fund of the House of Representatives 

for Offi cial Offi ce Expenses of Members of the House Incurred 

Outside the District of Columbia,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, 

May 11, 1967, pp. 12325-12326. It was enacted into permanent law 

in P.L. 90-392, 82 Stat. 318 (July 9, 1968). 

99 U.S. Comptroller General, Letter to Omar Burleson, Chairman, Committee on House Administration, Oct. 3, 1960, 86th

Congress, Records of the Committee on House Administration; 

RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), National Archives, 

Washington, DC. 

100 H. Res. 1270 (91st Cong.) was agreed to by the House on Dec. 

2, 1970. “Telephone, Telegraph, and Radiotelegraph Allowances for 

Members, House of Representatives, and Resident Commission, 

Puerto Rico,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, Dec. 2, 1970, pp. 

39448–39449. It was enacted into permanent law in P.L. 91-665, 

84 Stat. 1990 (Jan. 8, 1971).

101 Telephone time was translated to telephone “units” for purposes of the allowance. 

102 Committee Orders 7, 9, 22, and 30. Th ese are reprinted within 

the notes for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

103 Committee Order No. 22, Committee on House Administration, Jan. 3, 1975, in 2 U.S.C. § 57.

104 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the 100th Congress, 100th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), pp. 52–56.

105 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992), pp. 18–19.

106 Ibid., p. 25. 

107 P.L. 84-421, 70 Stat. 31 (Feb. 27, 1956).

108 P.L. 80-197, 61 Stat. 366 (July 17, 1947).

109 P.L. 84-422, 70 Stat. 31 (Feb. 27, 1956).

110 See notes in former section 2 U.S.C. § 46b; H. Res. No. 1029, 

89th Cong, Oct. 5, 1966; H. Res. 112, 90th Cong., Mar. 8, 1967, 

enacted into permanent law by P.L. 90-21, 81 Stat. 38 (May 29, 

1967).

111 Memorandum issued by the Committee on House Administration on Aug. 13, 1957, 85th Congress, Records of the Committee on 

House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), 

National Archives, Washington, DC. 
296 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

112 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Regulations: Travel and Other Expenses of Committee and Members, April 

1, 1974 (revised), p. 23. 

113 “Providing an Additional Stationery Allowance for Members of 

the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, Oct. 2, 1963, 

vol. 109, p. 18585; made permanent by P.L. 88-454, 78 Stat. 550 

(Aug. 20, 1964).

114 Committee Order No. 29, Committee on House Administration, Jan. 3, 1977, in 2 U.S.C. § 57.

115 H. Res. 318 was agreed to by the House on Sept. 27, 1951. 

“Electric Offi ce Equipment for Members,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 97, Sept. 27, 1951, pp. 12289-12292. It was enacted into permanent law in July 1952 (P.L. 82-471, 66 Stat. 470 (July 9, 1952)). 

Th e value of all equipment in each Member’s offi ce was limited to 

$1,500. Prior to 1951, offi ce equipment was provided to Members 

from available supplies with no specifi c limitation on the value of 

such equipment in an offi ce at any one time.

116 “Authorizing the Clerk of the House to Furnish Certain Electrical or Mechanical Offi ce Equipment for the Use of Members,” 

report to accompany H.J. Res. 206, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

162, (Washington, GPO: 1953), p 2. 

117 “Congressional Offi ce Equipment,” Congressional Record, Mar. 

16, 1953, vol. 99, p. 1990.

118 P.L. 83-10, 67 Stat. 7 (Mar. 25, 1953).

119 “Authorizing the Clerk of the House to Furnish Certain Electrical or Mechanical Offi ce Equipment for the Use of Members,” 

report to accompany H.J. Res. 206, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

162, (Washington, GPO: 1953). 

120 P.L. 84-15, 69 Stat. 13 (Mar. 25, 1955); P.L. 84-420, 70 Stat. 

30 (Feb. 25, 1956).

121 “History of the Committee on House Administration, 1946-

1984,” unpublished, Nov. 17, 1987, p. 60.

122 Th is method was established pursuant to authority in P.L. 

84-420, 70 Stat. 30 (Feb. 25, 1956). 

123 Audit report on House property for FY1959 from Frank Weitzel, Comptroller General of the U.S. to Chairman Omar Burleson, Oct. 20, 1960, 86th Congress, Records of the Committee on 

House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), 

National Archives, Washington, DC.

124 H.R. 13929 (91st Cong.) was enacted into P.L. 91-139, 83 Stat. 

291 (Dec. 5, 1969).

125 Decision of the Committee on House Administration, June 30, 

1969. 91st Congress, Records of the Committee on House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of Representatives), National 

Archives, Washington, DC. 

126 P.L. 91-139, 83 Stat. 291 (Dec. 5, 1969), which repealed, in 

part, P.L. 83-10, 67 Stat. 7 (Mar. 25, 1953).

127 Internal unnamed records, 92nd Congress, Records of the 

Committee on House Administration, RG Group 233 (House of 

Representatives), National Archives, Washington, DC

128 Committee Order No. 6, Committee on House Administration, May 1, 1973, in 2 U.S.C. § 57.

129 Committee Order No. 17, Committee on House Administration, Mar. 1, 1975, in 2 U.S.C. § 57.

130 Th e Committee’s recommendations were contained in Order 

ADM 7800.5 of GSA, issued and eff ective on Aug. 11, 1967.

131 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the 100th Congress, 100th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), pp. 40–43.

132 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the 97th Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 27–31.

133 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the 100th Congress, 100th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), pp. 19, 23, 31.

134 For a discussion of the early insistence of the House of its right 

to determine the compensation of its own offi cers and employees, 

see: Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives 

of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. V, sec. 7241.

135 For additional information on staffi ng prior to 1946, see: Lindsay Rogers, “Th e Staffi ng of Congress,” Political Science Quarterly, 

vol. 56, Mar. 1941, pp. 1–22.

136 George B. Galloway, “Th e Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,” American Political Science Review, vol. 45, 

Mar. 1951, p. 53.

137 Roger H. Davidson, “Th e Advent of the Modern Congress: 

Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,” Legislative Studies 

Quarterly, vol. 15, Aug., 1990, p. 367.

138 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, committee print, Policies, Precedents, and Procedures Including Related 

Statistical Information (Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), committee print 89th

Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1965), p. 44.

139 See, for example: Harrison W. Fox, Jr. and Susan Webb Hammond. Congressional Staff s: the Invisible Force in American Lawmaking (Th e Free Press, New York: 1977), pp. 12–32. See also Hammond’s later surveys of studies on legislative staffi ng: “Legislative 

Staff s,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp. 

271–317, and “Recent Research on Legislative Staff s,” Legislative 

Studies Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 543–576. 

140 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 297

109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

sec. 724. 

141 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Policies, 

Precedents, and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information 

(Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), committee print 89th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965). 

142 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Regulations: Travel and Other Expenses of Committees and Members; Committee Studies and Investigations, Revision of Jan. 1, 1970, committee 

print, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1969).

143 For examples, see: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Report on Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on Activities 

of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Fifth 

Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 (Washington: 

GPO, 1979).

144 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 37–38.

145 Th is language was also included in the FY2011 and FY2012 

budget requests.

146 H. Res. 416 (89th Cong.). Made permanent by the Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Act, FY1967, P.L. 89-545, 80 Stat. 369, sec. 

103 (Aug. 27, 1966).

147 H. Res.420 (93rd Cong.). Made permanent by the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1974, P.L. 93-245, 87 Stat. 1079 (Jan. 3, 

1974); 2 U.S.C. § 60g-2.

148 Mary Jacoby, “LBJ Interns Offi cially Get the Ax Th is Year 

But Members Who Haven’t Maxed Out At 22 Slots Can Still Pay 

Summer Staff ers,” Roll Call, May 19, 1994, p. 10.

149 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979) p. 179.

150 Th e Senate agreed to S.Res. 219 (95th Congress), which established the Senate senior citizen internship program, on May 5, 1978.

151 U.S. Congress, House, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, H. Rept. 112-137, 

112th Congress, July 7, 2011 (Washington, GPO: 2011), pp. 

20–21; and U.S. Congress, House, Second Semiannual Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, H. 

Rept. 112-360, 112th Congress, Dec. 30, 2011 (Washington, 

GPO: 2011), p. 8.

152 Enacted into permanent law by P.L. 96-536, 94 Stat. 3167, sec. 

101(c) (Dec. 16, 1980), 2 U.S.C. § 92.

153 Th is language appears in the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, which repealed the 

earlier law (P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1720, title I, sec. 104(e)(2), (Aug. 

20, 1996) 2 U.S.C. § 92).

154 “Clerk Hire Allowance, House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Mar. 15, 1961, p. 4059.

155 Testimony of Omar Burleson, Chairman of the Committee on 

House Administration, Additional Employees Paid from a Member’s 

Clerk Hire Allowance, unpublished hearings, Committee on House 

Administration, Subcommittee on Accounts, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 

Mar. 27, 1968 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 

90 HHad-T.19), p. 2.

156 Testimony of Rep. Samuel Devine, Additional Employees Paid 

from a Member’s Clerk Hire Allowance, unpublished hearings, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Accounts, 90th

Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 27, 1968 (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-NO: 90 HHad-T.19), p. 6.

157 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1193, title IV, sec. 471 (Oct. 26, 1970); 

2 U.S.C. § 331.

158 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, Sept. 16, 1970, pp. 32224–32229.

159 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1194, title IV, sec. 472 (Oct. 26, 1970); 

and P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1743, title II, sec. 210(2)(A) (Aug. 20, 

1996); 2 U.S.C. § 332.

160 “Clerk-Hire Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico [ H. 

Res. 294],” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Aug. 14, 1964, p. 19710.

161 Congressional Record, vol. 123, Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227. Committee Order No. 31 and a note to accompany it are reprinted 

within the notes for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

162 P.L. 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329-290, 1329-310 (Dec. 22, 1987); 

2 U.S.C. § 60a-2a.

163 “Clerk-Hire Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico [ H. 

Res. 294],” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Aug. 14, 1964, p.19710.

164 Committee Order No. 26, Congressional Record, vol. 133, 

June 30, 1987, p. 21624. Th is order is reprinted within the notes 

for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

165 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, report 

to accompany H. Res. 148, Providing for the Expenses of Certain Committees of the House of Representatives in the 108th

Congress, 108th Cong. 1st sess., H. Rept. 108-091 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003), p. 11.

166 2 U.S.C. § 60a-2. 

167 2 U.S.C. § 125 and 2 U.S.C. § 38b.

168 “Authority to Clerk of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 

99, July 17, 1953, p. 9072.
298 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

169 P.L. 470, 68 Stat. 403, ch. 455, title I (July 2, 1954); 2 U.S.C. § 

125.

170 Gratuities for Benefi ciaries of Deceased Employees of the Architect’s (Policy), unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 87th Cong., June 20, 1961 (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 87 HHad-T.33).

171 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Payment of Death Gratuities in the Case of Certain Employees Under the Jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol Who Are 

Assigned to Duty in the House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 88-410 (Washington: GPO, 1963), p. 2.

172 P.L. 88-454, 78 Stat. 550, sec. 103 (Aug. 20, 1964); 2 U.S.C. 

§ 1851.

173 “Minimum Employment Time for Employees of Members 

and Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 112, Oct. 19, 1966, 

p. 27653.

174 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and Expenses of 

Committees, Members, and Employees of the House of Representatives, 

July 1, 1979, p. 94, included in the Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 

96th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 121.

175 H. Res. 12 (95th Cong.).

176 Committee on House Administration, Dear Colleague letter 

Jan. 27, 2005.

177 See, for example: U.S. Congress, Offi ce of Inspector General, 

Problems Plagued the House’s Financial Operations (95-CAO-16, 

July 18, 1995); and Followup Review Of Prior Recommendations In 

Th e Offi ce Of Th e Chief Administrative Offi cer ( 98-CAO-12, Nov. 

4, 1998). 

178 Th e disbursement of pay monthly dates at least to the 1930s 

(May 21, 1937, ch. 236, sec. 2, 50 Stat. 199, as added June 2, 1939, 

ch. 171,53 Stat. 802). FY2002 amendment language: H. Rept. 107-

169; P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 573, title I, sec. 116(a) (Nov. 12, 2001); 

2 U.S.C. § 60d-1.

179 31 Stat. 968, ch. 830 (Mar. 3, 1901).

180 “House Employment Rolls: Special Committee Holds Two 

Sessions for Examining Witnesses,” Washington Post, Feb. 26, 

1901, p. 4; “Loafers on the Roll: Verdict of Special Committee on 

Patronage of House. Absenteeism and other Abuses, Practice of 

Dividing Salaries Found to Exist, but to a Much Less Degree Th an 

in Recent Congress—Cases of a Michigander and a New Yorker 

Who Draw Pay, but Do No Work—Employees in the Librarian’s 

Offi ce Not Attending to Business,” Washington Post, Mar. 1, 1901, 

p. 4; “Soft Places in House: Salaries Paid to Employees Who Do 

Little Work. Absent for Months at a Time, Civil Service Reform 

League’s Investigating Committee Comments Sharply on Abuses 

in Connection with the Employment of Clerks and Laborers by 

the House of Representatives—Public Money Paid Where Service 

Is Not Rendered and Clerks Bled,” Washington Post, July 16, 1901, 

p. 2; “What Will the League Do?” Washington Post, July 19, 1901, 

p. 6; “Offi ce Holding in Washington; Several Census Bureau 

Clerks Are Secretaries to House Members,” New York Times, Aug. 

14, 1901, p. 6; and “Dates for Holiday Recess,” Washington Post, 

Dec. 11, 1901, p. 4.

181 U.S. Congress, Special Committee Appointed to Investigate 

the Appointment and Payment of Employees of the House, Special 

Investigation of House Employees, 56th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2978 

(Washington: GPO, 1901), p. III.

182 Ibid, p. VI. 

183 “Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill,” Congressional Record, vol. 32, Feb. 26 and 27, 1901, pp. 3071, 3098. Th is 

measure was necessary to overcome procedural barriers regarding 

the inclusion of new matter in a conference report and legislation 

on an appropriations bill.

184 31 Stat. 968, ch. 830 (Mar. 3, 1901); 2 U.S.C. § 89.

185 P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1734, Aug. 20, 1996; U.S. Congress, 

House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of 

Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress,

compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 1095. Some 

of the provisions referenced formerly appeared in 2 U.S.C. § 85 to 

88a, 90, 91, now repealed.

186 For an early example, see H.R. 11813 of the 72nd Congress, 

introduced on May 3, 1932 and an 1865 resolution prohibiting the 

“appointment of the sons of Members of the House to any offi ce 

under the Clerk, Doorkeeper, Sergeant-at-Arms, or Postmaster.” 

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Dec. 

5, 1865, 39th Cong, 1st sess., p. 17, and cited in: Asher C. Hinds, 

Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States 

(Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. V, sec. 7240.

187 Statements by Members of Congress Concerning Employees and 

Offi ce Space—Nepotism Bills, unpublished hearing, Committee on 

House Administration, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 27, 1959 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.25), p. 8.

188 Ibid., p. 11.

189 Statements by Members of Congress Concerning Employees and 

Offi ce Space—Nepotism Bills, unpublished hearing, Committee on 

House Administration, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 5, 1959 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.21), p. 9. 

190 Relative to Limitation of Compensation Paid to Certain Employees in Members’ Offi ces, unpublished hearing, Committee on House 

Administration, 89th Cong., 1st sess., May 19, 1965 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 89 HHad-T.17), p.4.

191 P.L. 90-206, 81 Stat. 640 (Dec. 16, 1967), 5 U.S.C. § 3110; 

and “Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 113, Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28658.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 299

192 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 

2007), sec. 1095.

193 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 

2007), sec. 939.

194 U.S Congress, House, Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management, Recommendations and Rationales of the Commission on Administrative Review, U.S. House of Representatives, Concerning Administrative Units and Work Management (Including House 

Resolution 766) with Minority Views, committee print, 95th Cong., 1st

sess., Sept. 23, 1977 (Washington: GPO, 1977), pp. 50–56.

195 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Congress, 100th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1991), 

pp. 80–94.

196 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred First Congress, 

101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), 

p. 107.

197 H.R. 4894 (102nd Cong.); H.R. 349, H.R. 2729, H.R. 3801 

and H.R. 4822 (103rd Cong.).

198 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Th ird Congress, 

103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 (Washington: GPO, 1995), 

p. 13–14.

199 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Congressional Accountability Act, report to accompany H.R. 4822, together 

with minority views, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-650, Part 

II (Washington: GPO, 1994).

200 Ibid, p. 11.

201 P.L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec. 31, 1974); 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

202 P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 (Sept. 6, 1966); 5 U.S.C. § 552.

203 Ibid, p. 27.

204 Ibid, p. 28.

205 P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 4 (Jan. 23, 1995); 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq.

206 Th e eleven laws originally included in the act are: Th e Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-202, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 621 et seq.); Th e Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 

101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.); Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.); Th e Employee 

Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-347, 29 U.S.C. § 2001 

et seq.); Th e Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1060, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.); Th e Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 

(P.L. 103-3, 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq.); Chapter 71 (relating to Federal service labor-management relations) of Title 5 of the U.S. Code; 

Th e Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596, 29 

U.S.C. § 651 et seq.); Th e Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112, 

29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.); Chapter 43 (relating to veterans’ employment and reemployment) of Title 38 of the U.S. Code; and Th e 

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notifi cation Act (P.L. 100-379, 

29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.).

207 “Congressional Accountability Act of 1995,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 534.

208 P.L. 104-1, sec. 304, 109 Stat. 29 (Jan. 23, 1995); and H.Con.

Res. 123, H.Con.Res. 207, H. Res. 311, H. Res. 400, H. Res. 504 

(104th Congress).

209 H. Res. 401 (104th Cong.); and U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of 

the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. 

Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 

(Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 754.

210 P.L. 105-339, 112 Stat. 3185 (Oct. 31, 1998); 2 U.S.C. § 1316a.

211 P.L. 108-349, 118 Stat. 1389 (Oct. 21, 2004).

212 P.L. 110-164, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2459.

213 P.L. 104-1, Jan. 23, 1995 109 Stat. 28 and 29; 2 U.S.C §§ 

1383 to 1384.

214 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred Sixth Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-

1056 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 6.

215 Th e House of Representatives Telecommuting Policy.

216 “Rules of the House [ H. Res. 5]” Congressional Record, vol. 

145, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 80. Th e modifi ed provision is contained within: 

U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of 

the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth 

Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 1095.

217 Th e House of Representatives Telecommuting Policy. 

218 U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 

30, 2002, and For Other Purposes, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

107-259 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 39.

219 Jennifer Yachnin, “Ney to Convene Evaluation of Evacuation,” 

Roll Call, May 18, 2005; U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Hearing on the Emergency Preparedness of the House 

and the Evacuation of May 11, 2005, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., 

June 9, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005). 

220 Statement of Robert Ney, Chairman of the Committee on 
300 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Accessibility of the House Complex for Persons with 

Special Needs, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 28, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 2.

221 Statement of Juanita Millender-McDonald, Ranking Member 

of the Committee on House Administration, Ibid., p. 3.

222 For more information about the exemption of the Committee 

on Appropriations from certain staffi ng regulations, see section on 

the Committee Funding Resolutions.

223 60 Stat. 834, 835, ch. 753, title II, sec. 203 (Aug. 2, 1946).

224 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Legislative Branch Employment: Trends in Staffi ng, 1960–2000. Table 6. 

House of Representatives Employment, 1960-2000, by Paul Dwyer 

and R. Eric Petersen, CRS Report: RL30996 (Washington: 2001), 

p. 12. See also: Guide to Congress, 5th edition (Washington: CQ 

Press, 2000), chapter 17: Congressional Staff .

225 P.L. 103-69, 107 Stat. 710 (Aug. 11, 1993).

226 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives during the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 2.

227 Th is authority was formerly contained in 2 U.S.C. § 72a(k).

228 H. Res. 172 (81st Cong.), House Journal, p. 346.

229 63 Stat. 230, ch. 235, sec. 105 (June 22, 1949). For additional 

resolutions, see note on the former subsec. (k) in 2 U.S.C.A. § 72a.

230 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for Two Additional Clerks for the Committee on the Judiciary,

report to accompany H. Res. 464, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

81-1810 (Washington: GPO, 1950).

231 “Rereferral of Resolution,” Congressional Record, vol. 112, Feb. 

7, 1966, p. 2373. See also: Lewis Deschler, Deschler’s Precedents of the 

United States House of Representatives (Washington: GPO, 1977), 

v. 4, p. 2899.

232 H. Res. 16 (87th Cong.) and P.L. 87-130, 75 Stat. 334, sec. 

103 (Aug. 10, 1961); and 2 U.S.C. § 72a-1b. See also: Deschler’s 

Precedents, ch. 17, sec. 13.1 et seq.

233 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 

2007), sec. 241.

234 “Compensation of Committee Employees,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 99, Jan. 22, 1953, pp. 498–502.

235 H. Res. 146, “Compensation of Employees of Standing and 

Select Committees,” Congressional Record, vol. 111, Jan. 28, 1965, 

p. 1427. See also the Parliamentarian’s Note in: Lewis Deschler, 

Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives

(Washington: GPO, 1977), v. 4, pp. 2666. Th e Committee has 

leave to report at any time matters referred to it expenditure of the 

applicable accounts of the House under the House Rules (U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House 

of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 

compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 853.

236 “Providing for Payment of Standing and Select Committee Expenses,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, Jan. 15, 1973, pp. 

1057–1058.

237 60 Stat. 834, ch.753, sec. 202 (Aug. 2, 1946). 

238 U.S. Congress, House, Joint Committee on the Organization 

of Congress, Organization of Congress, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1675, (Washington: GPO, 1946) p. 10.

239 “Investigation of Administration of the Civil Service Commission and the Post Offi ce Department,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 103, Jan. 30, 1957, pp. 1274–76.

240 Kenneth Th eodore Kofmehl, Professional Staff s of Congress 

(West Lafayette, IN: Th e Purdue University Press, 1977), p. 212.

241 Roscoe Drummond, “Republicans Default: Small Staff s Limit 

Action,” Washington Post, Feb. 18, 1961, p. A9. Drummond followed this story with numerous other articles on the division of congressional staff resources, including: “Senate Scandal . . . Imbalance 

in Staff s,” Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1962, p. A9; “Debate on HR 

570 . . . GOP’s Arguments Go Unanswered,” Washington Post, Apr. 

25, 1962, p. A19; “Committee Staff Inequity Eyed,” Washington 

Post, July 15, 1962, p. E7; “Committee Staffi ng: Republicans Step 

Up Drive,” Washington Post, Sept. 8, 1962, p. A9; “Progress Made 

on Hill Staff s,” Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1962, p. E7; “Committee 

Staffi ng . . . A Progress Report,” Washington Post, Feb. 26, 1963, p. 

A17; “New Staffi ng Study. Ammunition for Republicans,” Washington Post, May 11, 1963, p. A6; and “Congress Staff Ratio May 

Change,” Washington Post, Nov. 10, 1963, p. E7.

242 “Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 107, Feb. 28, 1961, p. 2858.

243 “Expenses of Studies and Investigations by Committee on 

Government Operations,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Feb. 28, 

1961, p. 2861.

244 “Expenses of Studies and Investigations, Committee on Public 

Works,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Feb. 28, 1961, p. 2868.

245 Ibid.

246 “Expenses of Committee on Armed Services,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 109, Feb. 27, 1963, p. 3052. Th is discussion covers 

pages 3051–3063.

247 Ibid., p. 3053

248 Ibid., p. 3055.

249 Ibid., p. 3053.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 301

250 Ibid., p. 3060.

251 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1177, sec. 302 (Oct. 26, 1970).

252 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, July 15, 1970, p. 24483. Th e debate continues on July 16, 

1970, pp. 24582–24590.

253 H. Res. 5, House Journal, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 21, 1971, 

pp. 4–5.

254 H. Res. 988, Title IV, sec. 401, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., agreed 

to on Oct. 8, 1974.

255 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Jan. 14, 

1975, pp. 22–23.

256 Mary Jacoby, “Nine Panels Get More to Spend,” Roll Call, 

Mar. 18, 1993, p. 3.

257 Ibid.

258 For more information about the Reserve Fund and the division 

of funds between the majority and minority parties, see the section 

on the Committee Funding Resolutions.

259 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 468.

260 Th is requirement is now contained within the House Rules: 

U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of 

the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth 

Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 767.

261 See, for example H. Res. 51 (102nd Cong.), a resolution to 

establish the Select Committee on Hunger, the Select Committee 

on Children, Youth and Families, and the Select Committee on 

Narcotics Abuse and Control.

262 Committee on House Administration, Member’s Congressional 

Handbook.

263 60 Stat. 835, 60 sec.202(f) (Aug. 2, 1946); 2 U.S.C. § 72a(f).

264 For more information on the limitations on the compensation 

of a consultant, see the May 1951, correspondence between Comptroller General Lindsay Warren and Th omas Stanley concerning 

the authority of the committee to approve a request from the Committee on Ways and Means to employ a tax attorney. Reprinted in 

“Th e Committee on House Administration: Policies, Precedents 

and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information, January 1947–January 1966,” Committee on House Administration, 

committee print, 89th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1965).

265 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1179, sec. 303 (Oct. 26, 1970); 2 U.S.C. 

§ 72a.

266 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, report 

to accompany H.R. 2739, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-482 

(Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 30. Th is change was incorporated in 

law in: P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1731 (Aug. 20, 1996).

267 “Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts, Committee on House 

Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, Feb. 8, 1967, p. 3000.

268 U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules, Report of the Bipartisan 

Task Force on Ethics on H.R. 3660, to Amend the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to Provide 

for Government-Wide Ethics Reform, and for Other Purposes, 101st 

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 60.

269 For additional information about clerk-hire allowances prior 

to 1946, see: Lindsay Rogers, “Th e Staffi ng of Congress,” Political 

Science Quarterly, vol. 56, Mar., 1941, pp. 1–22. Footnote 1 has 

increases for clerk-hire salary 1907–1940.

270 27 Stat. 757 (Mar. 3, 1893). For the opinion of the Committee on Accounts on the subject of clerk hire, see: U.S. Congress, Committee on Accounts, Payment of Clerks for Members 

of Congress, 52nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2587 (Washington: 

GPO, 1893).

271 58 Stat. 831, ch. 617 (Dec. 20, 1944).

272 U.S. Congress, House, Joint Committee on the Organization 

of Congress. Organization of Congress, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1675 (Washington: GPO, 1946) p. 15.

273 P.L. 663, 60 Stat. 911, ch. 870 (Aug. 8, 1946); and P.L. 430, 

63 Stat. 974, ch. 783 (Oct. 28, 1949).

274 Proposal to Increase the Clerk Hire for Members’ Offi ces, U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearing, May 3, 1949 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CISNO: 81 HHad-T.3), pp. 3, 12.

275 Ibid.

276 P.L. 121, 63 Stat. 265, ch. 238, sec. 4 (June 23, 1949).

277 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Policies, 

Precedents, and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information (Jan. 1947–Jan. 1966), committee print, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 

(Washington: GPO, 1965), pp. 39–45; Some of these levels were 

not specifi ed in law but set by the Committee on House Administration or the House Committee on Appropriations. See, for 

example: Chairman John Taber, House Committee on Appropriations to Lyle Snader, Clerk of the House, May 27, 1954, Records 

of the Committee on House Administration (HR84A-F8.14), 84th

Congress, Records of the U.S. House of Representatives, Record 

Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC. Th e Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Act, FY1956 (P.L. 242, 69 Stat. 509, Aug. 

5, 1955), however, specifi ed an amount available for the salaries of 

not more than eight clerks.

278 Clerk Hire, Committee on House Administration, HR81AF8.1, 81st Congress, and Members Clerk Hire Allowance, Jan. 1955, 

HR84A-F8.14, 84th Congress, Records of the U.S. House of Representatives, Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, DC.
302 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

279 P.L. 967, 70 Stat. 990 (Aug. 3, 1956). For a report indicating the Committee’s work on this issue earlier in 1956, see: U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to Clerk 

Hire of Members of House of Representatives, report to accompany 

H.R.12119, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2632 (Washington: 

GPO, 1956).

280 Survey of Positions in the House of Representatives, unpublished 

hearings, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

84th Cong., 1st sess., June 13, 1955 (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc, CIS-NO: 84 HHad-T.1), pp. 202–209. U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing Each Member 

of the House of Representatives to Employ an Administrative Assistant, a report to accompany H.R. 12601, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 1856 (Washington: GPO, 1958); Authorizing Each Member 

of the House of Representatives to Employ an Administrative Assistant,

report to accompany H.R. 4521, 86th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 40 

(Washington: GPO, 1959); and Authorizing Each Member of the 

House of Representatives to Employ an Administrative Assistant, etc., 

a report to accompany H.R. 5045, 86th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

149 (Washington: GPO, 1959).

281 To Increase the Basic Clerk Hire Allowance, unpublished hearings, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 87th 

Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 14, 1961 (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-NO: 87 HHad-T.26), p. 3.

282 “Clerk Hire Allowance, House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 107, Mar. 15, 1961, pp. 4059–4061.

283 H. Res. 294 and H. Res. 855 (89th Cong.); H. Res. 357 (91st

Cong.), as enacted into permanent law by P.L. 91-145, 83 Stat. 359, 

sec. 103 (Dec. 12, 1969), and repealed by P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 

172, title I, sec. 104(e)(3) (Aug. 20, 1996).

284 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to the Limitation on the Number of Employees Who May be 

Paid from the Clerk Hire Allowances of Members of the House and 

Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, report to accompany H. 

Res. 1264, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1628 (Washington: 

GPO, 1970).

285 “Relating to Limitation on Number of Employees Who May 

Be Paid From Clerk Hire Allowances of Members of the House and 

Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, Dec. 7, 1970, p. 40186.

286 P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 1990 (Jan. 8, 1971).

287 U.S. Congress. Committee on Rules, Report of the Committee 

on Rules on H.R. 17654: to Improve the Operation of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government and for Other Purposes. 91st

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1215 (Washington: GPO, 1970), pp. 

29, 127–128.

288 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, Sept. 16, 1970, pp. 32223–32224.

289 H. Res.457 (92nd Cong.) made permanent by P.L. 92-184, 85 

Stat. 636 (Dec. 15, 1971).

290 Th ese rulings included Baker v. Carr in 1962 (369 U.S. 186), 

which was extended to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964 

with Wesberry v. Sanders (376 U.S. 1).

291 Committee Order No. 3, Congressional Record, vol. 118, Feb. 

29, 1972, p. 1622. Reprinted within the notes of 2 U.S.C. § 57.

292 Committee Order No. 5, May 1, 1973; and Committee Order 

No. 16. Th ese are reprinted within the notes for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

293 “Relating to Intern Programs and the Clerk Hire Allowance,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 125, July 20, 1979, p. 19693.

294 P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1720 (Aug. 20, 1996), 2 U.S.C. § 92.

295 Order No. 41, which is reprinted within the notes for 2 U.S.C. 

§ 57.

296 P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1720 (Aug. 20, 1996); 2 U.S.C. § 57a 

et seq.

297 “House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 142, Mar. 19, 1996, 

p. 5280.

298 See: Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and 

Expenses of Committees, Members, and Employees of the House of 

Representatives, July 1, 1979, p. 136, included in the U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of 

the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Sixth 

Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 (Washington: 

GPO, 1981), p. 163.

299 Committee Orders 35, 38, 39, and 40. Th ese are reprinted 

within the notes for 2 U.S.C. § 57.

300 63 Stat. 265, P.L. 121, ch. 238, sec. 4 (June 23, 1949).

301 P.L. 92-271, 86 Stat. 119 (Apr. 10, 1972).

302 P.L. 94-26, 89 Stat. 94 (May 27, 1975).

303 P.L. 95-556, 92 Stat. 2078, sec. 5 (Oct. 31, 1978).

304 P.L. 97-357, 96 Stat. 1711, Title IV, sec. 401 (Oct. 19, 1982).

305 See, for example: Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, “Hays 

Unit to Trace Mrs. Powell’s Checks,” Washington Post, Dec. 14, 

1966, p. E15.

306 “Clerk-Hire Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico 

[H. Res. 294],” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Aug. 14, 1964, 

p. 19710.

307 “Clerk Hire [H. Res. 7],” Congressional Record, vol. 111, Jan. 

4, 1965, p. 21.

308 Relative to Limitation of Compensation Paid to Certain Employees in Members’ Offices, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, unpublished hearing, May 19, 1965 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc, CIS-NO: 89 HHad-T.17); and P.L. 89-90, 

sec. 103, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 281.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 303

309 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 

1999, H. Res. 5, p. 80. Th e modifi ed provision is contained within: 

U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules 

of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 

109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

sec. 1095.

310 P.L. 88-652, 78 Stat. 1079, sec. 2 (Oct. 13, 1964), 2 U.S.C. 

ch. 10.

311 Th e incumbent of this position formerly assisted Members of 

the minority party in vote pairing. For more information on the 

history of this position and vote pairing see: Clarence Cannon, 

Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States 

(Washington: GPO, 1935), vol. 8, pp. 625–638. Th e position has 

been eliminated, and the House Rule referring to vote pairing was 

amended in the 106th Congress. U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of 

the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. 

Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 

(Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 1015.

312 Personnel Matters, unpublished hearing, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 89th Cong., June 15, 1966 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 89 HHad-T.8), pp. 

124–125. 

313 Lewis Deschler, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House 

of Representatives (Washington: GPO, 1977), vol. 1, pp. 199–200.

314 Clarence Cannon, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1935), vol. 5, 

pp. 964–965.

315 Ibid., pp. 965–966.

316 Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to Congress, 5th ed., 2 vols. 

(Washington: CQ Press, 2000), v. 2, pp. 800–801.

317 Ibid.

318 Lindsay Rogers, “Th e Staffi ng of Congress,” Political Science 

Quarterly, vol. 56, Mar. 1941, pp. 1–22.

319 Th omas Stanley, to Mary Norton, Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, Aug. 24, 1950, Employment 

fi les, HR84A-F8.14, 84th Congress, Records of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC.

320 Samuel Friedel, Committee on House Administration, to 

Ralph Roberts, Clerk of the House, May 10, 1955, Employment 

fi les, HR84A-F8.14, 84th Congress, Records of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC.

321 See, for example: H.R. 7683 (85th Cong.); H.R. 988 (86th

Cong.); H.R. 1244 (87th Cong.); H.R. 6135 (87th Cong.); and H.R. 

13236 (87th Cong.).

322 “Classifi cation of Certain Positions Under House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Oct. 2, 1964, p. 23686.

323 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Classifi -

cation of Certain Positions Under House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 88-1771 (Washington: GPO, 1964).

324 Ibid.

325 “Classifi cation of Certain Positions Under House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Oct. 2, 1964, p. 23687.

326 Ibid., p. 23686.

327 P.L. 88-652, 78 Stat. 1079 (Oct. 13, 1964), 2 U.S.C. ch. 10.

328 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Accounts, Comparative Analysis of Existing Law (Public Law 88-652) with H.R. 12606, H.R. 12688, and H.R. 13239, 

committee print, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1966). 

329 To Amend the House Employees Position Classification Act,

unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 89th 

Cong., Mar. 22, 1966 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., 

CIS-NO: 89 HHad-T.11), p.19. 

330 Ibid., p.7.

331 Personnel Matters, unpublished hearing, Committee on House 

Administration, 89th Cong., June 15, 1966, (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 89 HHad-T.8), p. 125.

332 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 

192.

333 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), p. 70.

334 FY1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-53, 

109 Stat. 522 (Nov. 19, 1995).

335 P.L. 106-554, sec. 1(a)(2) [title I, sec. 102(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 

114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-100.

336 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 

2007), sec. 724. 

337 Th e Speaker had exercised the power of appointment since at 

least Jan. 15, 1874, when the House agreed to add the following 

addition to the Rules of the House: “Th e appointment and removal 

of the offi cial reporters of the House shall be vested in the Speaker; 

and, in addition to their other duties, the reporters of the House 

proceedings and debates shall prepare and furnish for publication a list of the memorials, petitions, and other papers, with their 
304 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

reference, each day presented under the rule,” Journal of the House 

of Representatives of the United States, Jan. 15, 1874, 43rd Cong., 1st 

sess., p. 242. On that day, Speaker James Blaine of Maine indicated 

that he would appoint the “existing reporters, and will consider 

that the power of removal is only vested in him for cause, which he 

will have entered upon the Journal” and indicated his belief that 

appointments would continue across Congresses. “Offi cial Reporters,” Congressional Record, vol. 2, Jan. 15, 1874, p. 681.

338 “Administration of Offi cial Reporters of Debates and of Committees Vested in Clerk,” Congressional Record, vol. 124, Jan. 23, 

1978, pp. 431–432.

339 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as Amended, so 

as to Extend the Benefi ts of Such Act to the Offi cial Reporters of Debates 

in the Senate and Persons Employed by Th em, 80th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 80-456 (Washington: GPO, 1947).

340 H. Res. 732 (82nd Cong.); and H. Res. 739 (82nd Cong.).

341 Pending Matters, U. S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearing, 85th Cong., May 14, 1958 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 85 HHad-T.46), p. 5.

342 H. Res. 568 (85th Cong.).

343 “Basic Compensation of Expert Transcribers,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 105, Mar. 13, 1959, p. 4096.

344 Basic Compensation of the Clerk to the Official Reporters of 

Debates, and Assistant Clerks and Clerk of the Offi cial Committee 

Reporters, unpublished hearing, U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, 86th Cong., Aug. 5, 1959 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.29); and “Offi cial 

Reporters of Debates and Offi cial Committee Reporters,” Congressional Record, vol. 105, p. 16198.

345 H. Res. 995 (90th Cong.)

346 H. Res. 1241 (91st Cong.). Compensation fi gures after the 

passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 appear higher 

because the act required that they be stated at a single per annum 

gross rates (P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1193, title IV, sec. 471 (Oct. 26, 

1970); 2 U.S.C. § 331). 

347 “Relating to Compensation of Clerks to Offi cial Reporters of 

Debates,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, Dec. 1, 1970, p. 39342.

348 H. Res. 865 (91st Cong.); and H. Res. 13 (93rd Cong.).

349 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing Pay Comparability Adjustments for Certain House Employees 

Whose Pay Rates are Specifi cally Fixed by House Resolutions, 92nd 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 92-65 (Washington: GPO, 1971).

350 H. Res. 703, and H. Res. 900 (94th Cong.).

351 “Providing Salary Adjustments for Official Reporters of 

Debates and Official Reporters to Committees,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 122, Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34107–34108.

352 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing Amounts from the Contingent Fund of the House for the Expenses of 

Investigations and Studies by Certain Committees of the House in the 

First Session of the 103rd Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1993); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives During the One Hundred First Congress, 

101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991). 

353 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report to 

Accompany H.R. 2739, the House of Representatives Administrative 

Reform Technical Corrections Act, 104th Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 

104-482 (Washington: GPO, 1996).

354 Th e regulations are now included in the Committees’ Congressional Handbook. Th ese regulations formerly appeared in the “Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and Expenses 

of Committees, Members, and Employees” document which was 

issued by the committee. Many of these were reprinted in the biennial Report on Activities of the Committee on House Administration (for 

examples, see U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fourth Congress , 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept.94-1790 

(Washington: GPO, 1977) p. 56; and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Report on Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 95-1836 (Washington: GPO, 1979) p. 86). 

355 34 Stat. 1365, ch. 2918 (Mar. 4, 1907), 2 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq. 

Th e commission consists of the Speaker and two other appointed 

members, traditionally the Majority and Minority Leaders.

356 35 Stat. 578 (May 28, 1908); 2 U.S.C. § 2004 et seq.

357 41 Stat. 1291, ch. 124 (Mar. 3, 1921).

358 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. 

4, p. 838.

359 U.S. Congress, Committee on Accounts, Changes in the Lobby 

of the House, report to accompany H. Res. 322, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 56-2643 (Washington: GPO, 1901).

360 U.S. Congress, Committee on Accounts, Assignment of Certain 

Rooms in House Wing of the Capitol, report to accompany H. Res. 

247, H. Rept. 67-525 (Washington: GPO, 1921).

361 House Journal, Dec. 20, 1921, p. 48.

362 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. 

Doc. 109-157, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

sec. 724.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 305

363 P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

364 Th e Senate does not consider appropriations for House offi ce 

buildings, which are contained in the budget of the Architect of 

the Capitol, although the House fi gure, as passed by the House, is 

counted in the Senate bill.

365 Interview with Mr. Charles T. Howell, minority staff , Committee on House Administration, conducted on June 13, 2006. 

366 “Th ere’s Some Movement, Here,” Roll Call, Dec. 21, 1978; and 

“Rules and Procedures Governing the Selection and Assignment of 

Suites in the House Offi ce Buildings,” Congressional Record, Mar. 

25, 1980, vol. 126, p. 6599.

367 Rule 3, “Rules and Procedures Governing the Selection and 

Assignment of Suites in the House Offi ce Buildings,” House Offi ce 

Building Commission, Oct. 7, 1996, contained in letter from Superintendent of House Offi ce Buildings Robert R. Miley to Members 

on Nov. 7, 1996. U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s 

Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 

One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 109-157, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 2007), sec. 1114.

368 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 139, June 10, 1993, p. 12505.

369 P.L. 103-69, 107 Stat. 712, sec. 312 (Aug. 11, 1993).

370 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 140, May 26, 1994, p. 12000. 

371 P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 537, sec. 307 (Nov. 19, 1995).

372 U.S. Congress, House Offi ce Building Commission, “Rules 

and Procedures Governing the Selection and Assignment of Suites 

in the House Offi ce Buildings,” Sept. 26, 2008.

373 Statement of James Eagen, Chief Administrative Offi cer 

of the House, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearings on Capitol Security, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, 

hearing, 107th Cong. 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003), p. 7.

374 P.L. 471, 66 Stat. 470 (July 9, 1952); P.L. 178, 67 Stat. 325 

(Aug. 1, 1953); and P.L. 83-470, 68 Stat. 403 (July 2, 1954).

375 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1955, With Reference to Offi cial 

Offi ce Expenses of Members of Congress, 85th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

85-457 (Washington: GPO, 1957).

376 P.L. 85-54, 71 Stat. 82 (June 13, 1957).

377 Testimony of Robert Ashmore, Additional Office Space in 

Home Districts of Congressmen, Delegates and Resident Commissioner, 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished 

hearing, 85th Cong., Mar. 8, 1957, (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 85 HHad-T.3), p. 3.

378 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing Additional Offi ce Space in Home Districts of Congressmen, 

Delegates, and Resident Commissioners, 85th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 85-1222 (Washington: GPO, 1957).

379 P.L. 85-301, 71 Stat. 622 (Sept. 7, 1957).

380 UPI, “Congressman Puts Wife, Front Porch Of Indiana Home 

on U.S. Payroll,” Th e Washington Post and Times-Herald, Mar. 5, 

1959, p. A1; “Voters Seen Curbing Nepotism,” Th e Washington 

Post and Times Herald, Mar. 15, 1959, p. B19; James Carberry, 

“Rep. Blitch Collects Rent for Her Garage,” Th e Washington Post 

and Times-Herald, Apr. 1, 1959, p. A1; “Party Gets U.S. Rental For 

Offi ce,” Th e Washington Post and Times-Herald, Apr. 1, 1959, p. A2; 

UPI, “Reporter Berated by Congresswoman,” New York Times, Apr. 

15, 1959, p. 65. Representative Iris Blitch of Georgia responded to 

the allegations against her in a speech to the House (“Authorizing 

Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 105, Apr. 14, 1959, p. 5842).

381 Statements by Members of Congress Concerning Employees and Offi ce 

Space—Nepotism Bills, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearing, 86th Cong., Aug. 5, 1959, (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.21), p. 2.

382 Testimony of George Rhodes, Statements by Members of Congress Concerning Employees and Offi ce Space—Nepotism Bills, U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearing, 86th Cong., Aug. 5, 1959, (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.21), pp. 21-22.

383 Ibid., p. 24.

384 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of July 2, 1954, Relating to Offi ce Space in the Districts 

of Members of the House of Representatives, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 89-726 (Washington: GPO, 1965).

385 “Offi ce Space in Districts for Members,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 111, Aug. 4, 1965, pp. 19428-19429.

386 P.L. 89-211, 79 Stat. 857 (Sept. 29, 1965). 

387 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Regulations: Travel and Other Expenses of Committees and Members, Jan. 1, 

1970 (Revised), committee print, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1969), p. 22.

388 Authority for the Committee on House Administration to fi x 

and alter allowances was granted in H. Res. (92nd Cong.) and made 

permanent by P.L. 92-184, 85 Stat. 636 (Dec. 15, 1971).

389 “Allowance for Rental of District Offi ces,” Committee Order 

No. 1 (Revised), Congressional Record, vol. 118, Jan. 26, 1972, p. 

1293; and 2 U.S.C. § 57.

390 “Change in Allowances for Members,” Committee Order 

No. 12, Congressional Record, vol. 120, Mar. 5, 1974, p. 5357; and 

2 U.S.C. § 57.

391 “House Administration Committee Reforms,” Committee 
306 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Order No. 30, Congressional Record, vol. 122, June 30, 1976, p. 

21624; and 2 U.S.C. § 57. Th e formula, as well as information on 

mobile offi ce leases, examples of lease agreements, and a requirement 

that payment for commercial leases be issued at the end of each 

month, is contained in the committee publication “Regulations 

and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and Expenses of Committees, Members, and Employees,” which was reprinted in: U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on Activities 

of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Fourth 

Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977).

392 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for District Offi ce Space for Members of the House of Representatives, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-600 (Washington: GPO, 

1977).

393 P.L. 95-391, 92 Stat. 777, sec. 111 (Sept. 30, 1978).

394 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

108–816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 24; U.S. Congress, House 

Inspector General, Mar. 23, 2005, Report No. 05-CAO-01, “How 

To Improve District Offi ce Transitions.”

395 U.S. Congress, House, Statement of Disbursements of the House, 

Apr. 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006, part 2 of 2, as compiled by the Chief 

Administrative Offi cer and referred to the Committee on House Administration, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-121 (Washington: 

GPO, 2006), p. 4461.

396 Committee on House Administration, Member’s Congressional 

Handbook.

397 Robert V. Remini, Th e House: Th e History of the House of 

Representatives (New York: Smithsonian Books in association with 

HarperCollins, 2006), p. 12.

398 Robert C. Albright, “Junkets Might Alter Next Session’s 

Votes,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 1947, p. B1.

399 Chairman Omar Burleson, Committee on House Administration to Samuel Friedel, Committee on House Administration, July 18, 

1963, Committee on House Administration, Special Subcommittee 

on Audit, 88th Congress, Records of the U.S. House of Representatives, Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC. 

400 110th Congress, House Rule X, clause 1(j); 111th Congress, House 

Rule X, clause 1(j); 112th Congress, House Rule X, clause 1(k).

401 P.L. 472, 62 Stat. 151-152, ch. 169, sec. 115(b)(6) (Apr. 3, 

1948).

402 P.L. 47, 63 Stat. 54, ch. 77, sec. 9(h) (Apr. 19, 1949).

403 P.L. 165, 65 Stat. 385, ch. 479, title V, sec. 527 (Oct. 10, 1951); 

and P.L. 402, 66 Stat. 150, ch. 449, sec. 9 (June 20, 1952).

404 Chairman Robert Chiperfi eld, House Committee on Foreign Aff airs, to Chairman Karl Le Compte, Committee on House 

Administration, Jan. 16, 1954; Committee on House Administration, HR83A-F8.2, 83rd Congress, Records of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, DC. 

405 P.L. 83-665, 68 Stat. 832 (Aug. 26, 1954), 22 U.S.C. § 1754.

406 P.L. 83-665, 68 Stat. 850, sec. 502 (Aug. 26, 1954).

407 See for example, H. Res. 319 of the 86th Congress, which permitted the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to travel 

abroad to attend steamship conferences. 

408 P.L. 85-477, sec. 401, 72 Stat. 268 (June 30, 1958).

409 To Require Full Disclosure of Expenditures of Government and 

Counterpart Funds by Members of Congress Traveling in Oversea[s] 

Areas, unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 

86th Cong., May 21, 1959 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., 

CIS-NO: 86 HHad-T.19), p. 3.

410 To Require Full Disclosure of Expenditures of Government and 

Counterpart Funds by Members of Congress Traveling in Oversea[s] 

Areas, unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 

86th Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 1959 (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc., CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.19), p. 7. 

411 To Require Full Disclosure of Expenditures of Government and 

Counterpart Funds by Members of Congress Traveling in Overseas 

Areas, unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 

86th Cong., 1st sess., June 30, 1959 (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc., CIS-No: 86 HHad-T.20), p. 18.

412 P.L. 86-472, sec. 401, 74 Stat. 138 (May 14, 1960).

413 P.L. 86-628, sec. 105, 74 Stat. 460 (July 12, 1960).

414 Participation in the North Atlantic Assembly (now NATO 

Parliamentary Assembly) was authorized in a law passed in 1956 

(P.L. 689, 70 Stat. 523, ch. 562, sec. 1 (July 11, 1956), 22 USC § 

1928a). Wayne Hays, in addition to his work on the Committee 

on House Administration, was a member of the Committee on 

Foreign Aff airs and led the delegation to the assembly from its 

inception until 1976. Charlie Rose, who served as Chairman of 

the Committee on House Administration during the 102nd and 

103rd Congresses (1991–1994), was also a long-time member of the 

congressional delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. Information on authority for participation in other interparliamentary 

groups is found in Title 22 of the U.S. Code (Foreign Relations 

and Intercourse).

415 For discussion of the relationship between the Committee on 

Rules and the Committee on House Administration in authorizing and appropriating the use of funds, see the point of order made 

concerning the reporting of H. Res. 84 (88th Congress), which permitted overseas travel and use of counterpart funds by the Armed 

Services Committee, by the Rules Committee. “Th e Committee 

on Armed Services,” Congressional Record, vol. 109, Jan. 31, 1963, 

p. 1547. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 307

416 Consideration begins with: “Authorization for the Committee 

on Banking and Currency,” Congressional Record, vol. 109, Jan. 31, 

1963, p. 1547.

417 “Authorizing Committee on Agriculture to Conduct Studies 

and Investigations,” Congressional Record, vol. 109, Feb. 18, 1963, 

p. 2463.

418 Th e eight committees limited to the United States were the 

Committees on Agriculture, Banking and Currency, District of 

Columbia, Education and Labor, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

Judiciary, Post Offi ce and Civil Service, and Veterans’ Aff airs. Th e 

Committee on Public Works was authorized to travel to Canada, 

and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was authorized to travel to the Panama Canal Zone. Rules Committee Chairman Howard Smith, in response to a question from Emanuel Celler, 

did indicate that these committees could appear before his committee and ask for additional travel authority, which a few did. Rep. 

Howard Smith, “Committee on Banking and Currency,” remarks 

in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 109, Jan. 31, 1963, p. 1549; 

and H. Res. 510, 514, and 515 of the 88th Congress, for example).

419 Th ese included the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign 

Aff airs, Government Operations, Interior and Insular Aff airs, and 

Science and Astronautics. 

420 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing that Members of Congress Shall be Limited to Per Diem Allowances 

and Necessary Transportation Costs in Connection with Travel Outside 

the United States, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.J. 

Res. 245, 88th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 236 (Washington: GPO, 

1963), pp. 2–3. Th is included the Committees on Appropriations, 

House Administration, House Un-American Activities, Rules, and 

Ways and Means.

421 “Authorization for the Committee on Armed Services,” Congressional Record, vol. 109, Jan. 31, 1963, p. 1547.

422 Per Diem and Transportation Costs for Members of Congress, 

unpublished hearing, Committee on House Administration, 88th 

Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 14, 1963 (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-No: 88 HHad-T.56), p. 3.

423 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing that Members of Congress Shall be Limited to Per Diem Allowances 

and Necessary Transportation Costs in Connection with Travel Outside 

the United States, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.J. 

Res. 245, 88th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1963), p. 2.

424 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing that Members of Congress Shall be Limited to Per Diem Allowances 

and Necessary Transportation Costs in Connection with Travel Outside 

the United States, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.J. 

Res. 245, 88th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 236 (Washington: GPO, 

1963), p. 3.

425 See for example: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Regulations, Travel and Other Expenses of Committees and Members, Revision of Jan. 1, 1970, committee print, 

91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1969). For later versions, 

entitled “Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances 

and Expenses of Committees, Members, and Employees,” were 

reprinted in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Reports on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration for the Ninety-Four, Ninety-Fifth, and Ninety-Sixth Congresses, 

94th Cong, 2nd sess.–96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790, H. 

Rept. 95-1836, H. Rept. 96-1558 (Washington: GPO, 1977, 

1979, and 1981).

426 P.L. 93-126, 87 Stat. 452, sec. 5 (Oct. 18, 1973).

427 P.L. 93-371, 88 Stat. 444, sec. 107 (Aug. 13, 1974).

428 H. Res. 988 (93rd Cong).

429 P.L. 94-59, 89 Stat. 299, sec. 1104 (July 25, 1975), 22 U.S.C. 

§ 276c-1.

430 22 U.S.C. § 276c-1 note.

431 P.L. 94-350, 90 Stat. 833, sec. 402 (July 12, 1976) 22 U.S.C. 

§ 1754.

432 P.L. 95-384, 92 Stat. 742, sec. 22 (Sept. 26, 1978). Th e Speaker 

of the House may designate a Member or employee to travel on 

offi cial business pursuant to House Rule I, clause 10. U.S. Congress, 

House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of 

Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Ninth Congress, 

compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 108-241, 

108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), sec. 636. Th is 

clause was adopted in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975), 

Ibid. 

433 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Jan. 4, 

1977, p. 54.

434 “Providing for Consideration of House Resolution 287, to 

Amend the Rules of the House of Representatives,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 123, Mar. 2, 1977, p. 5941.

435 House Rule X, clause 8, 109th Congress. U.S. Congress, 

House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of 

Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Ninth Congress, 

compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 108th Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Doc. 108-241 (Washington: GPO, 2005), sec. 769. 

436 Drew Pearson, “Lame Ducks Also Flying South,” Washington 

Post, Dec. 5, 1948, p. M29. See also, for example: Editorial, “Duty 

Above All,” Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1964, p. A16; Associated 

Press, “Lame Duck Junkets Hit,” Washington Post, Jan. 19, 1973, 

p. A14; and Chicago Tribune Press Service, “Lame Duck Junkets 

Still Safe,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 9, 1973, p. A12.

437 Th e “lame duck” travel prohibitions were formerly found in 

clause 2(n)(5) of Rule XI and clause 8 of Rule I. When the House 

recodifi ed its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was transferred to the former Rule XXV, which was redesignated as Rule 

XXIV in the 107th Congress. “Rules of the House,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47.
308 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

438 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Investigation of Expenditures, report of Special Investigation Into Expenditures During the 89th Congress by the House Committee on 

Education and Labor and the Clerk-Hire Status of Y. Marjorie 

Flores (Mrs. Adam C. Powell), 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2349 

(Washington: GPO, 1967), p. 7.

439 Expenditures of Funds in the House of Representatives, unpublished hearings, Committee on House Administration, 90th Cong., 

1st sess., Apr. 17, 1967 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, 

CIS-NO: 90 HHad-T.7), p. 48; and Transportation Expenses of 

House Committees, unpublished hearing, Committee on House 

Administration, 90th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 1967 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc., CIS-NO: 90 HHad-T.5), pp. 7, 11.

440 U.S. Congress. Committee on House Administration. Regulations—Travel and other Expenses of Committees and Members, 

January 1, 1970 (Revised), committee print, 91st Cong., 1st sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 1969).

441 Dear Colleague letter of May 18, 1981. Reprinted in: U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 21–22.

442 Dear Colleague letter of Jan. 27, 2005.

443 For example, see: Dear Colleague letter of Aug. 3, 1995; 

Reprinted in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth 

Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: 

GPO, 1997), p. 55.

444 Dear Colleague letter of Sept. 26, 1995. Reprinted in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of 

the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives 

During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 60.

445 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives during the 107th Congress, 107th Cong., 2nd 

sess., (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 24.

446 U.S. Congress, James J. Cornell, House Inspector General, 

Improvements Are Needed in the House Travel Card Program, Report 

06-CAO-02, May 19, 2006. U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives during the 109th Congress, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 2007).

447 For example, according to the committee activity reports and 

Dear Colleague letters, new rates were eff ective Feb. 1, 2007, Mar. 

19, 2008, Aug. 1, 2008, Jan. 1, 2009, Jan. 1, 2010, Jan. 3, 2011, 

and Apr. 12, 2012.

448 Committee Resolution # 111-6, Voucher Documentation Standards, Oct. 21, 2009.

449 Franking privileges were also given to Members of the national 

legislature prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Th e fi rst such 

privilege was granted to Members of the First Continental Congress 

in 1775.

450 Act of Congress, Feb. 20, 1792, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 232 (1792).

451 For example, Act of Congress, Apr. 9, 1816, ch. 43, 3 Stat. 264 

(1816), granted the franking privilege to the Members thirty days 

prior to and thirty days after each session of Congress.

452 For example, Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1825, ch. 64, 4 Stat. 

102 (1825), limited franked mail to documents 2 ounces in weight 

or less.

453 For example, Act of Congress, Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 43, 1 Stat. 733 

(1799), which extended the franking privilege to various executive 

offi cers of the federal government.

454 For example, in 1863 Congress abolished the franking privilege for former Members. Act of Congress, Mar. 3, 1863, ch. 71, 

12 Stat. 701 (1863).

455 Act of Congress, Jan. 31, 1873, ch. 82, 17 Stat. 421 (1873).

456 Act of Congress, June 23, 1874, ch. 456, 18 Stat. 231 (1874).

457 Act of Congress, Jan 12, 1895, ch. 23, 28 Stat. 601 (1895).

458 Letter of Timothy J. May, General Counsel, Post Office 

Department, Dec. 26, 1968 and Letter of David A. Nelson, Senior 

Assistant Postmaster General and General Counsel, Aug. 12, 1971, 

reprinted in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Post Offi ce and 

Civil Service, Law and Regulations Regarding Use of the Congressional 

Frank, committee print, 92nd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1971), pp. 5–7.

459 Common Cause v. Bolger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 32 (D.D.C. 

1980); See also U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Th e Franking Privilege of Members of Congress, committee print, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1972), pp. 1–87.

460 P.L. 93-191, 85 Stat. 737.

461 H. Res. 287, agreed to in the House Mar. 2, 1977.

462 S. Con. Res. 139, May 14, 1986; P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2401, 

sec. 311, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1977.

463 P.L. 101-163, 103 Stat. 1052, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1990; P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2279, sec. 311(c), Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991.

464 H. Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977; S. Res. 110, Apr. 1, 1977; P.L. 

104-197, 110 Stat. 2401, sec. 102, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997).

465 H. Res 224, Apr. 27, 2005.

466 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, Ninety Ninth 

Congress, compiled by W. Holmes Brown, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 309

98-277, 98th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), Rule X, 

clause 1(k), pp. 362–364.

467 Ibid.

468 P.L. 101-163; 2 U.S.C. § 59e. 

469 H. Res. 6, 104th Congress (Jan. 5, 1995).

470 H. Res. 6, (110th Congress). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of 

the United States, One Hundred Ninth Congress, compiled by John 

V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 108-241, 108th Cong., 2nd

sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), Rule X, clause 1(i), pp. 444–446.

471 Ibid.

472 Ibid.

473 H.R. 10041; H.R. 12723.

474 H.R. 12736.

475 P.L. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263 (Oct. 15, 1974).

476 P.L. 93-191, 87 Stat. 737 (Dec. 18, 1973).

477 Senator Robert Dole, Congressional Record, vol. 120 (Apr. 1, 

1974), pp. 9093–9094.

478 H.R. 17026 (Oct. 2, 1974).

479 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration during the 

95th Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 (Washington: 

GPO, 1997), p. 51; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1978, report 

to accompany H.R. 11315, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-982 

(Washington: GPO, 1978).

480 H.R. 5338.

481 H. Doc. No. 95-73, 95th Cong., 1st sess.

482 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, report to accompany 

H.R. 5010, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 96-422 (Washington: 

GPO, 1979).

483 P.L. 96-187, 93 Stat. 1339 (Jan. 8, 1980); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the 

Committee on House Administration during the 96th Congress, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 3.

484 Walter Pincus, “Mountain of Mailings Grows Ever Taller,” 

Washington Post, July 21, 1989, p. A19; Robert V. Remini, Th e 

House: The History of the House of Representatives (New York: 

Smithsonian Books in association with HarperCollins, 2006), 

p. 502; 

485 H. Res. 287 (1977) had already prohibited the use of private 

or political funds for the purpose of printing and preparing franked 

mass mailings. 

486 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration during the 

99th Congress, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: 

GPO, 1986), pp. 62–63.

487 U.S. Congress, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Administration during the 99th Congress, p. 89.

488 P.L. 99-97 (Aug. 9, 1985).

489 Ibid., p. 89.

490 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil 

Service, Authorizing the Use of Offi cial Mail To Aid in the Location 

and Recovery of Missing Children, report to accompany S. 1195, 

99th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 99-226 (Washington: GPO, 1985).

491 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration during the 

100th Congress, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), p. 115.

492 Legislative Appropriations Act, 1990 (P.L. 101-163, §317; 103 

Stat. 1041, 1067 (1989)).

493 Legislative Appropriations Act, 1991 (P.L. 101-520, §311(a); 

104 Stat. 2254, 2278 (1990)).

494 Ibid., P.L. 101-520, §311(b); 104 Stat. 2254, 2279.

495 Ibid., P.L. 101-520, §311(e); 104 Stat. 2254, 2279-2280.

496 Representatives Frank Annunzio and William M. Th omas, 

Chair and Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, Dear Colleague letter, of Dec. 14, 1990.

497 Representatives Charlie Rose and William M. Th omas, Chair 

and Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, Dear 

Colleague Letter, of Mar. 21, 1991; U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Bipartisan Task Force Investigation of 

House Post Offi ce Management and Operations, Investigation of 

the Offi ce of the Postmaster, Pursuant to House Resolution 340, 102nd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-713 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 38.

498 Alice A. Love, “Franked Mail Takes Plunge,” Roll Call, Apr. 4, 

1994, p. 1. Benjamin Sheff ner, “House Franking 20% Below 1993,” 

Roll Call, July 6, 1995, p. 7.

499 H.R. 331 (Jan. 5, 1993).

500 H.R. 1062 (Feb. 23, 1993).

501 H.R. 1169 (Mar. 2, 1993).

502 H.R. 3569 (Oct. 16,1991).

503 H.R. 4104 (Jan. 22, 1992).

504 H. Res. 340 (Feb. 5, 1992).

505 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Bipartisan Task Force Investigation of House Post Offi ce Management 

and Operations, Investigation of the Offi ce of the Postmaster, Pursuant 

to House Resolution 340, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-713 

(Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 72.

506 Ibid., p. 77.

507 H. Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 5, 1995.
310 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

508 See 2 U.S.C. §501. Conforming statutory references were made 

in P.L. 104-14, §1; 109 Stat. 186, 187 (1995).

509 P.L. 93-191, 87 Stat. 737 (Dec. 18, 1973)

510 34 Stat. 1365, ch. 2918 (Mar. 4, 1907); 35 Stat. 578 (May 28, 

1908); 2 U.S.C. § 2001.

511 P.L. 93-191, §5; 87 Stat. 737, 742; 2 U.S.C. §501.

512 Interviews with Charles T. Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House Administration, Apr. 3, 2007.

513 U.S. Congress, House Commission On Congressional Mailing 

Standards, Regulations on the Use of the Congressional Frank By Members 

of the House of Representatives (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 5, 9, 19.

514 Interviews with Charles T. Howell and Ellen McCarthy, Committee on House Administration, Apr. 3, 2007.

515 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight during the 104th Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 

1997), pp. 2, 7. Th e statutory maximum for each Member may not 

be set at “more than the product of (i) 3 times the single-piece rate 

applicable to fi rst class mail, and (ii) the number (as determined by 

the Postmaster General) of addresses (other than business possible 

delivery stops) in the congressional district, as such addresses are 

described in section 3210(d)(7)(B) of title 39, United States Code.” 

Legislative Appropriations Act, 1991 (P.L. 101-520, §311; 104 Stat. 

2254, 2278 (1990)); Timothy J. Burger and Alice Love, “House 

Franking Slashed by 33%,” Roll Call, Feb. 9, 1995, p. 1. 

516 Paul Horowitz, “Panel Pares Frank Funds 22.5 Percent,” Roll 

Call, Mar. 2, 1992, p. 1.

517 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 104th 

Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: 

GPO, 1997), p. 55.

518 Ibid., p. 17.

519 Ibid., p. 9.

520 Benjamin Sheffner, “House Oversight’s First Hearing on 

Franking Spotlights Competing Plans for Cuts in Mail,” Roll Call, 

Apr. 6, 1995, p. 10.

521 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 105th 

Congress, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: 

GPO, 1999), p. 16 .

522 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 106th

Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-1056 (Washington: 

GPO, 201), p. 14.

523 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration during 

the 107th Congress, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003).

524 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Meeting 

to Approve New Electronic Communications Policy, 108th Cong., 1st 

sess., Sept. 5, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003).

525 H. Res 224; H. Rpt. 109-224.

526 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Mass 

Mailing Regulations, approved Sept. 25, 2008.

527 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the 112th Congress, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 20–21.

528 Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Rule 

X, clause 1 and clause 1(j)(13), H. Doc. 108-241 (Washington: 

GPO, 2005), pp. 424, 449.

529 Th e Coordinator was directed to cooperate with the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress in preparation 

of material. 80th Congress, Records of the Committee on House 

Administration, Record Group 233 (House of Representatives), 

National Archives, Washington, DC.

530 Rep. Wayne L. Hays, “Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, Feb. 8, 1967, p. 3000. See 

also Wayne L. Hays, “Conduct and Ethics,” remarks in the House, 

Congressional Record, vol. 113, Feb. 21, 1967, pp. 4134–4135.

531 Rep. Charles E. Bennett, “Committee on House Administration Asserts Jurisdiction in the Field of Ethics and Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 113, Feb. 9, 1967, pp. 3196–3197; and Rep. 

Charles E. Bennett and Rep. Omar Burleson, “Providing Funds for 

the Committee on House Administration,” remarks in the House, 

Congressional Record, vol. 113, Mar. 8, 1967, pp. 5758–5763.

532 “Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 113, Apr. 13, 1967, pp. 9425, 9426–9448.

533 Th is understanding is based on language in the Committee’s 

calendars, its activities reports, in legislation addressing House 

administrative matters, and interviews with Committee staff . 

534 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the Ninety-Eight Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 98-1173 (Washington: GPO, 1984), pp. 82–84.

535 “Providing for Consideration of House Administrative Reform 

Resolution of 1992,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Apr. 9, 1992, 

pp. 9030–9056; and “House Administrative Reform Resolution of 

1992,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Apr. 9, 1992, pp. 9056–9076. 

536 H. Res. 423 specifi ed that the Inspector General be appointed 

by the Speaker, and Majority and Minority Leaders. Th e Inspector 

General’s pay was not linked to that of House offi cers. 

537 H. Res. 423 specifi ed that the Director be paid the same rate 

as an elected offi cer of the House. Th e Director was to be appointed 

by the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader, subject to 

removal by the House or the Speaker. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 311

538 H. Res. 423 was agreed to by the House on Apr. 9, 1992. Most of 

its provisions were incorporated into House Rule X, clause 4(d)(1)(A). 

539 “Rules of the House,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 104th

Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 4, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 13.

540 “Rules of the House,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 

Jan. 4, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 13.

541 “Rules of the House,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 

104th Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 4, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1999), 

p. 13.

542 “Rules of the House (Oversight of Offi cers),” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 3, 2001 

(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 5.

543 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 6.

544 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 

108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), 

pp. 6–7.

545 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 7.

546 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 7.

547 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 7. 

548 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, Sept. 17, 1970, pp. 32276-32310; Oct. 6, 1970, pp. 35025-

35048; Oct. 8, 1970, pp. 35838-35842; and “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140-1204 (Oct. 26, 1970). 

549 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, interim report to accompany S. 

Con. Res. 2, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 89-426 (Washington: 

GPO, 1965). p. 2.

550 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, Final Report, report to accompany 

S. Con. Res. 2, S. Rept. 89-1414, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1965). 

551 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970). 

552 Th e Offi ce was created to assist Members in locating and hiring 

staff and in dealing with offi ce operations problems.

553 Subsequently renamed the Government Accountability Offi ce.

554 H. Res. 132 was introduced on Jan. 15, 1973, by Representatives Richard Bolling and Dave Martin, and referred to the House 

Committee on Rules. “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 119, Jan. 15, 1973, p. 1090. On Jan. 31, 1973, H. Res. 

132 was adopted by the House (282-91). “House Committee to 

Study House Rules X and XI,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, Jan. 

31, 1973, pp. 2812–2816. Th e Select Committee dissolved at the 

of the 93rd Congress. 

555 “Committee Reform,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 

93rd Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 8, 1974 (Washington: GPO, 1976), 

pp. 1865, 1874, 1878. Although some provisions of H. Res. 988 (sec. 

202-208) were incorporated into P.L. 93-554, 88 Stat. 1777 (Dec. 

27, 1974), those containing jurisdictional changes were incorporated 

into House Rules. 

556 “Committee Reform,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 

93rd Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 8, 1974 (Washington: GPO, 1976), 

pp. 1871. 

557 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Information and Facilities, Final Report of the Commission on Information and Facilities, 

pursuant to section 204 of House Resolution 988, 93rd Cong., 95th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 95-22 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 1; and 

U.S. Congress, House Commission on Information and Facilities, 

Automated Information Resources for the U.S. House of Representatives: 

A Report of the Commission on Information Facilities, 94th Cong., 

2nd sess., committee print (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 3, 5–7. 

558 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, 

report to accompany H. Res. 988, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

93-916 (Washington: GPO, 1974).

559 “To Establish a Commission on Administrative Review in 

the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, July 

1, 1976, pp. 21788–21807; and U.S. Congress, Commission on 

Administrative Review, Organization Meeting of the Commission on 

Administrative Review, U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 17, 1976 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 1.

560 U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, 

Organization Meeting of the Commission on Administrative Review, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 17, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 

1977), p. 1. 

561 During the commission’s organizational meeting on Sept. 

17, 1976, Rep. William L. Armstrong emphasized the infl uence 

of Hays’ alleged actions when he said, “If I may respectfully point 

out, one of the reasons why this Commission came into existence 

is the abuse of . . . power by the former chairman of the House 

Administration Committee.” U.S. Congress, Commission on 

Administrative Review, Organization Meeting of the Commission on 

Administrative Review, U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 17, 1976 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 18. See also: Bruce F. Reed, “Hays 

Resigns Post; Scandal Broadens,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly 

Report, vol. 34, June 19, 1976, pp. 1564–1566, 1624; and “Hays 
312 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Resigns Seat After Ethics Committee,” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 34, Sept. 4, 1976, p. 2430.

562 U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, Scheduling the Work of the House, H. Doc. 95-23 (Washington: GPO, 

1977); U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, 

Financial Ethics, H. Doc. 95-73 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and 

U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management, H. Doc. 95-232 

(Washington: GPO, 1977). 

563 U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, Final 

Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, report pursuant 

to Section 5 of House Resolution 1368, 94th Congress, H. Doc. 

95-272 (Washington: GPO, 1977). 

564 U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, 

Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management, H. Doc. 

95-232 (Washington: GPO, 1977). H. Res. 766 was rejected by the 

House on Oct. 12, 1977. “Providing for Consideration of House 

Resolution 766, Reform of the Administrative Organization and 

Legislative Management Services of the House of Representatives,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 123, Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33435–33444; 

and Ann Cooper, “House Refuses to Consider Obey Proposals,” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 35, Oct. 15, 1977, p. 2183.

565 Th e Policy Group continued to receive assistance from staff of 

House Information Systems.

566 Paul Dwyer, History of the Committee on House Administration, 

1946–1984, prepared at the request of the Committee on House 

Administration (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 

Nov. 17, 1987), pp. 287–288, 306–308.

567 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 18–19. 

568 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 19–20. 

569 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 

31–33, 92. 

570 Paul S. Rundquist, Paul E. Dwyer, John S. Pontius, Mildred 

Amer, and Lorraine Tong, House of Representatives’ Management: 

Background and Current Issues, CRS report 92-373 GOV (Washington: Congressional Research Service, Apr. 17, 1992), p. 4. See also: 

Craig Winneker and Karen Foerstel, “Under Seige, Leaders Try 

Reform Panel: Task to Report by Easter,” Roll Call, Mar. 26, 1992, 

pp. 1–19; Beth Donovan, “Privileges Under Scrutiny: More Talk 

Th an Action,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 50, Mar. 

28, 1992, pp. 785-787; and Walter Pinus and Kenneth J. Cooper, 

“Possible Obstruction Probed in House Post Offi ce,” Washington 

Post, Mar. 26, 1992, pp. A4, A24.

571 “Providing for the Consideration of House Resolution 423, 

House Administration Reform Resolution of 1992,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 138, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9056; and “House Administration 

Reform Resolution of 1992,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Apr. 9, 

1992, pp. 9056–9076.

572 “Providing for the Consideration of H. Res. 423,” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Apr. 9, 1992 

(Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 591–592.

573 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 2–3.

574 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 82–83.

575 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 5.

576 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. vi.

577 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), 

pp. 7, 36–39. 

578 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997). Th e plan 

also called for a review of Members’ allowances; reform in funding 

of offi cial mail; change in the regulations governing mass mailings 

60 days prior to primary and general elections; increase in frequency 

of franked mail cost disclosure; and expansion of private printing 

of government documents.

579 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 

3; and House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1718-1753 (Aug. 20, 1996).

580 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 313

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp 

56–57, 63–64, 83; and Minutes of Committee on House Oversight 

Meetings on June 14, 1995 and Oct. 25, 1995. 

581 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 109-752 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 23.

582 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Together with Minority Views, 112th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 21.

583 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives, 107th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 

2003), p. 18.

584 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Together with Minority Views, 112th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 7.

585 Chief Financial Offi cers Act of 1990, P.L. 101-576, 104 Stat. 

2838-2855 (Nov. 15, 1990).

586 Government Management Reform Act of 1994, P.L. 103-356, 

108 Stat. 3410-3417 (Oct. 13, 1994).

587 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Fourth Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 103-342 (Washington: GPO, 1995), pp. 348–349.

588 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 

7, 8, 11, 41–42.

589 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), 

pp. 7, 8, 11, 41–42; U.S. House, Offi ce of Inspector General, and 

PriceWaterhouse LLP, Office of Inspector General Audit Report. 

U.S. House of Representatives Audits of Administrative Operations: 

Compilation Report, Rpt. no. 95-HOC-23, July 18, 1995; David 

S. Cloud, “Audit Uncovers Financial Chaos in Chamber’s Record 

Keeping,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 53, July 22, 

1995, pp. 2140–2141; “Precedent-Setting Congressional Audit, 

Reveals Financial Shambles on the Hill,” Congressional Quarterly 

Almanac: 104th Congress 1st Session, 1995, vol. 51 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1996), pp. 1–26-1–27; and Timothy 

J. Burger, “After Audit, IG to Probe Violations,” Roll Call, July 20, 

1995, pp. 1, 14.

590 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Sixth Congress, 106th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-1056 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. viii. 

591 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration 

of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth 

Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008), p. 11.

592 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 

155, Jan. 6, 2009, p. H11.

593 Paul Dwyer, “History of the Committee on House Administration, 1946–1984,” prepared at the request of the Committee on 

House Administration, Nov. 17, 1987, pp. 35, 44.

594 P.L. 83-10, 67 Stat. 7 (Mar. 25, 1953); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Clerk of the 

House of Representatives to Furnish Certain Electrical or Mechanical 

Offi ce Equipment for the Use of Members, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 162 (Washington: GPO, 1953).

595 In the 85th Congress the subcommittee was renamed the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment.

596 P.L. 84-15 69 Stat. 13 (Mar. 15, 1955); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Joint Resolution of 

Mar. 25, 1953, Relating to Electrical or Mechanical Offi ce Equipment for the Use of Members, Offi cers, and Committees of the House 

of Representatives, 84th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 162 (Washington: 

GPO, 1955); P.L. 70 Stat. 30, 70 Stat. 30 (Feb. 25, 1956); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the 

Clerk of the House of Representatives to Furnish Certain Electrical or 

Mechanical Offi ce Equipment for the Use of Members, Offi cers, and 

Committees of the House of Representatives, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 1755 (Washington: GPO, 1956).

597 “H.R. 18428 [89th Cong., 2nd sess.],” Congressional Record, vol. 

112, Oct. 19, 1966, p. 26788. For Congressman McCloy’s remarks 

in introducing the bill see: Rep. Robert T. McCloy, “An Automatic Data Processing Facility to Support Congress,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 112, Oct. 19, 27824-27825. For his views two decades 

later see: Robert McClory, “A Member’s View of a Changing Congress,” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 

13, Feb./Mar. 1987, pp. 14–16.

598 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Office Equipment, 91st Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 

1969), p. 52.

599 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

First Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and 
314 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, 91st Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: 

GPO, 1969), p. 40.

600 First Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. 40; and “Congress Looks to 

Computers for Legislative Help,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly 

Report, vol. 14, Apr. 11, 1969, p. 525.

601 First Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. 35.

602 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Equipment, Automatic Data Processing for the House of Representatives, 91st Cong., 

1st sess., unpublished hearings, July 1, 1969 (LexisNexis, HRG1969-ADH-0016)

603 First Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. 1.

604 First Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. vii. See also: Robert L. Chartrand, “Redimensioning Congressional Information Support,” 

Jurimetrics Journal, vol. 11, June 1971, p. 172. 

605 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Equipment, Working 

Group—Automatic Data Processing for the House of Representatives, 91st Cong., 1st sess., unpublished hearings, July 1, 29, Aug. 

18-19, Sept. 3, 9, Oct. 28, Nov. 24, Dec. 1, 8, 10, 1969 (LexisNexis, 

HRG-1969-ADH-0016, HRG-1969-ADH-0017, HRG-1969-

ADH-0018, HRG-1969-ADH-0019, HRG-1969-ADH-0020, 

HRG-1969-ADH-0022, HRG-1969-ADH-0023, HRG-1969-

ADH-0024, HRG-1969-ADH-0025, HRG-1969-ADH-0026, 

HRG-1969-ADH-0027).

606 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Equipment, 

Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical 

Offi ce Equipment on Computerized Addressing and Mailing System 

for the House of Representatives. Prepared by the Working Group 

on Automatic Data Processing for the House of Representatives, 91st

Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 1970 (Washington: GPO, 1970). 

607 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and 

Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: 

GPO, 1970), pp. 1–2.

608 Second Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. 1.

609 Second Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, pp. vii–viii.

610 Second Progress Report of the Special Subcommittee on Electrical 

and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, p. viii.

611 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Equipment, Working 

Group—Automatic Data processing for the House of Representatives, 

91st Cong., 2nd sess., unpublished hearings, Jan. 12, 20, 28–30, 

Apr. 14, Sept. 22, 1970 (LexisNexis, HRG-1970-ADH-0015, 

HRG-1970-ADH-0016, HRG-1970-ADH-0017, HRG-1970-

ADH-0018, HRG-1970-ADH-0019,HRG-1970-ADH-0022, 

HRG-1970-ADH-0024). 

612 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

Funds for the Committee on House Administration, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 91-689 (Washington: GPO, 1969); “Providing Funds for 

the Committee on House Administration,” Congressional Record, vol. 

115, Nov. 25, 1969, p. 35640; U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Providing Certain Equipment for Use in the Offi ces of 

Members, Offi cers, and Committees of the House of Representatives, and 

for Other Purposes, 91st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 13949 (Washington: 

GPO, 1969); and P.L. 91-129, 83 Stat. 291 (Dec. 5, 1969). 

613 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e Bill 

Status System for the United States House of Representatives, committee print, 94th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 17.

614 Th e Bill Status System for the United States House of Representatives, p. 17.

615 Th e Bill Status System for the United States House of Representatives, pp. 17–18.

616 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 192.

617 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Library of Congress Information Resources and Services for the U.S. 

House of Representatives: A Report Prepared for the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Computers of the Committee on House Administration, 

94th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 27, 1976, committee print (Washington: 

GPO, 1976), p. iii. 

618 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Computer-Based Information Resources for the United States House of 

Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st sess., committee print, Sept. 1, 1974 

(Washington: GPO, 1975), p. III; and “Committee Order No. 

23—Committee on House Administration,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 121, July 29, 1975, p. 25577.

619 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 118.

620 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 192. Th e members of the Policy Group 

were Rep. Charlie Rose, Rep. David Stockman, and Rep. Edward D. 

Pattison. Th omas P. Southwick, “Computers Aid Congress in Work, 

Politics,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 35, May 28, 1977, p. 1049.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 315

621 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 188.

622 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 121.

623 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Fourth Congress, p. 119.

624 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 190.

625 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 194.

626 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Fifth Congress, pp. 200–202.

627 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Fifth Congress, p. 208.

628 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Information on Computer Terminal Equipment for Members and Committee Offi ces, 95th Cong., 1st sess., committee print, Nov. 1, 1977 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. iv; U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Contracting Support of Information 

Resources, Services, and Systems for the House of Representatives, 

95th Cong., 1st sess., committee print, Oct. 31, 1977 (Washington: 

GPO, 1977), p. v.

629 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Committee on House Administration, First Annual Report of 

the Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development, Congress 

of the United States, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., joint committee print, Aug. 

1, 1978 (Washington: GPO, 1978), pp. iii–v.

630 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 

(Washington: GPO, 1981), pp. 16–22. See also: U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Th e Legislative Information and 

Status System for the United States House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 

1st sess., committee print, Apr. 30, 1979 (Washington: GPO, 1979). 

631 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 92.

632 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, p. 92.

633 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 102.

634 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, p. 104.

635 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Technical Advisory Panel on the Digital Data Communications 

Network, hearings, 97th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 28–29, 1981 (Washington: GPO, 1981); and Report on the Activities of the Committee 

on House Administration During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 

pp. 25–27.

636 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1173 

(Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 89.

637 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Eighth Congress, pp. 90–91.

638 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Eighth Congress, pp. 92–94; U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of 

the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth 

Congress, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: 

GPO, 1987), p. 110.

639 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, p. 105.

640 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, p. 108.

641 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, pp. 107–109.

642 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundredth Congress, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 

(Washington: GPO, 1988), p. 76. 

643 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Congress, pp. 78–79.

644 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Congress, p. 78; U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Oversight into the Operation 

of the House Information Service, hearings, 100th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 

23, 1987 (Washington: GPO, 1987); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, House Information Systems: Catalog of 

Information and Computer Services, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., committee 

print (Washington: GPO, 1988). 

645 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Congress, pp. 103–104.

646 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Congress, pp. 100–104.
316 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

647 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred and First Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 141–142.

648 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and First Congress, p. 141. 

649 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and First Congress, p. 101; and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One 

Hundred and Second Congress, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-

1083 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 78. 

650 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and First Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 142. See also: Lea 

Fowlie, “House Information Systems Online Services: Today and 

Tomorrow,” Government Information Quarterly, v. 8, no. 3, 1991, 

pp. 285–291.

651 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred and Second Congress, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 78. 

652 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Second Congress, pp. 80–81.

653 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Second Congress, p. 85.

654 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Second Congress, pp. 83–86.

655 Chris Casey, Th e Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age (Boston: AP Professional, 1996), pp. 30, 71. See 

also: Mary Jacoby, “Th e New High-Tech House. Coming Soon: 

E-Mail Between Hill Offi ces, Links With District, Easier On-Line 

Searches,” Roll Call, Feb. 22, 1993, p. 15; and Charlie Rose, “Congress and Computers—the Future,” Bulletin of the American Society 

for Information Science, vol. 1, Apr. 1975, pp. 20–21.

656 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One 

Hundred and Th ird Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 

(Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 40. See also: Mary Jacoby, “Th e New 

High-Tech House. Coming Soon: E-Mail Between Hill Offi ces, 

Links With District, Easier On-Line Searches,” Roll Call, Feb. 22, 

1993, p. 15; and Susan B. Glasser, “Th e High-Tech Congress of the 

Future. Already, the Hill Has a Clear Ramp to the Information Highway. But Th ere’s Resistance,” Roll Call, Jan. 24, 1994, pp. 18, 20–21.

657 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 41.

658 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, pp. 11, 16. See 

also: Kristoff er Smulson, “House Accelerates Toward ‘Superhighway’: Internet Hearing Raises Concerns About Content, Amount of 

E-Mail Sent From Hill,” Roll Call, May 12, 1994, p. 15.

659 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, pp. 22, 24, 

49–50.

660 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 43.

661 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 42. See also: 

Graeme Browning, “Congress: Return to Sender,” National Journal,

Apr. 1, 1995, p. 795.

662 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 41.

663 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 71. 

664 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Th ird Congress, p. 72.

665 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on House Information Service, hearings, 103rd Cong., 

1st sess., Oct. 27, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1994).

666 David Dreier, “We’ve Come a Long Way . . . Maybe,” in James 

A. Th urber and Colton C. Campbell, eds., Congress and the Internet 

(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), pp. 53.

667 Dreier, “We’ve Come a Long Way . . . Maybe,” p. 54.

668 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred and Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 20. See also: Chris 

Casey, The Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age

(Boston: AP Professional, 1996), pp. 110–117; C. Lawrence Evans 

and Walter J. Oleszek, “Th e ‘Wired Congress:’ Th e Internet, Institutional Change, and Legislative Work,” in James A. Th urber and 

Colton C. Campbell, eds., Congress and the Internet (Upper Saddle 

River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), pp. 104–105; and Guy Lamolinara, 

“Congress on the Internet: New Web Server Organizes Online 

Information,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin, v. 54, Jan. 

23, 1995, pp. 27–32.

669 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred and Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 3, 79. See also: 

CyberCongress Accomplishments During the 104th Congress. Presented 

by the Computer and Information Services Working Group to the 

Committee on House Oversight, Feb. 11, 1997.

670 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred and Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 317

104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 46–48.

671 Ibid., pp. 51–52. See also: Ibid., p. 11. 

672 Ibid., pp. 11, 52.

673 CyberCongress Accomplishments During the 104th Congress. Presented by the Computer and Information Services Working Group 

to the Committee on House Oversight, Feb.11, 1997. See also: Eric 

Schmitt, “Capitol Hill Takes Cyberspace, Th rough Fits, Starts, and 

Stumbles,” New York Times, July 10, 1996, p. A12.

674 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred and Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 74.

675 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Fourth Congress, pp. 78–79.

676 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Fourth Congress, p. 106.

677 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred and Fifth Congress Together With Minority and 

Additional Views, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. IX, 16, 20, 23, 26–30, 32–33, 37–40. See 

also: Merry Mayer, “House Offi ces Face Own Hurdles to Fix Date 

Code,” Government Computer News, Sept. 21, 1998 [http://gcn.com/

Articles/1998/09/21/House-offi ces-face-own-hurdles-to-fi x-datecode.aspx]; Alan K. Ota, “Web Sites, Networks, and E-Mail Help 

Hill Kick Paper Habit,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 

55. Nov. 29, 1997, pp. 2944-2945; A. B. Stoddard, “House Internet 

Use Jumps 800 Percent,” Roll Call, Feb. 12, 1997, p. 4; Jonathan 

Weisman, “Lawmakers Gingerly Step Into the Information Age,” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 55, Nov. 29, 1997, pp. 

2935–2939, 

678 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Sixth Congress Together With Minority 

and Additional Views, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-1056 

(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. IX–XI, 6–8, 10–12, 14, 20. See 

also: Stacey Zolt, “Disbursements Going Online,” Roll Call, May 

17, 1999, p. 1, 25.

679 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred and Seventh Congress, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 8–10, 20–26.

680 Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and Seventh Congress, pp. 6, 24–25. 

See also: Bob Ney, Chairman, Committee on House Administration, and Steny Hoyer, ranking member, All Member Offices to 

Receive Blackberries (sic), Dear Colleague Letter, Sept. 21, 2001; 

Ney and Hoyer, BlackBerry Pager Update, Dear Colleague Letter, 

of Oct. 16, 2001 [http://www.house.gov/cha/publications/DC_s/

dc_s.html]; and “For Congress, An Abrupt Introduction to the 

Mobile Offi ce,” New York Times, Nov. 8, 2001, p. F8.

681 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing 

on E-Congress–Using Technology to Conduct Congressional Operations 

in Emergency Situations, hearing , 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002 

(Washington: GPO, 2003). See also: Dale Andrews, “E-Congress 

Pros, Cons Discussed,” Roll Call, May 2, 2002, p. 10; and Susan 

Ferrechio, “Congressional Affairs,” CQ Daily Monitor, May 2, 

2002, pp. 11-12.

682 Hearing on Security Updates Since September 11, 2001, pp. 

9–11. See also: Suzanne Nelson, “Capitol Police Sees Attrition 

‘Rapidly Improving,’” Roll Call, Sept. 12, 2002, pp. 10–11; and 

Emily Pierce and Susan Ferrechio, “Capitol Hill’s Sense of Security 

Far Diff erent Th an a Year Ago,” CQ Daily Monitor, Sept. 11, 2002, 

pp. 11–12.

683 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 4–5, 9, 17, 20–24; U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One 

Hundred Ninth Congress, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 

(Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 3–5, 9, 19–20, 23–24, 36.

684 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on IT Assessment: A Ten-Year Vision for Technology in the House, 

hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 27, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 

2006), p. 1.

685 Hearing on IT Assessment: A Ten-Year Vision for Technology in 

the House, pp. 4–5. See also: Ibid., pp. 9-10.

686 Hearing on IT Assessment: A Ten-Year Vision for Technology in 

the House, p. 5. See also: Ibid., pp. 10–11.

687 Gartner Consulting and the Congressional Management 

Foundation, A Report for the United States House of Representatives. 

Information Technology Assessment: To-Be Vision Report, Oct. 25, 

2005. A copy of the report is found in: Hearing on IT Assessment: A 

Ten-Year Vision for Technology in the House, pp. 85–105. 

688 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred and Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 14–16.

689 U.S. Congress, House, First Semiannual Report on the Activities 

of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives during the One Hundred Twelfth Congress together with Minority 

Views, H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2011), p. 10.

690 Ibid.

691 Skype® and ooVoo® are free video teleconferencing services 

that facilitate direct communications between Members and their 

constituents.
318 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

692 U.S. Congress, House, Second Semiannual Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives during the One Hundred Twelfth Congress together 

with Minority Views, H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington, GPO, 

2011), p. 4.

693 U.S. House, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, 

"Hosted Services," HouseNet, available at: https://housenet.house.

gov/portal/server.pt/community/hosted_services/480. Th e term 

House Cloud, which refers only to the secure House infrastructure 

that supports shared computer services, should not be confused 

with the term Cloud as used more generally in the IT community. 

Th e House servers and the shared services they support are available 

only to offi ces within the House of Representatives.

694 Rep. Phil Gingrey, opening statement in U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Oversight, Modernizing Information Delivery in the House, hearing, 

June 16, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 1. Available at http://

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

695 Th omas A. Edison, “Improvement in Electrographic VoteRecorder,” U.S. Patent 90,646, June 1, 1869 [http://edison.rutgers.

edu/patents/00090646.PDF], accessed Mar. 21, 2012.

696 “Vote Recorder,” Th e Edison Papers [http://edison.rutgers.edu/

vote.htm], accessed Mar. 21, 2012.

697 George Parsons Lathrop, “Talks With Edison,” Harper’s New 

Monthly Magazine, vol. 80, Feb. 1890, p. 431. 

698 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Plan to Register 

Votes, Etc., 49th Cong., 1st sess., Mis.Doc. 98, Serial Set 2415 (1886).

699 U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Electrical Recording of Yeas and Nays, 49th Cong., 1st sess., Mis.Doc. 315, Serial Set 

2418 (1886).

700 “Roll Call By Machine,” New York Times, Mar. 10, 1903, p. 9. 

701 “Public Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 48, part 2 (Jan. 23, 1912), p. 1241.

702 “Public Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 49, part 2 (Jan. 7, 1913), p. 1201.

703 “Public Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 51, part 9 ( May 12, 1914), p. 8481.

704 “Public Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 53, part 8 (May 4, 1916), p. 7438. See also, “National 

House May Vote By Power Method,” Christian Science Monitor, 

Aug. 8, 1916, p. 6. 

705 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Accounts, Electrical and 

Mechanical System of Voting, hearing on H. Res. 513, 63rd Cong., 2nd 

sess., July 31, 1914 (Washington: GPO, 1914), p. 9.

706 Ibid., pp. 10–11. 

707 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Accounts, Electrical 

and Mechanical System of Voting, report to accompany H. Res. 

223, 64th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 940, part 1 (Washington: 

GPO, 1916), p. 2.

708 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Accounts, Electrical and 

Mechanical System of Voting, report to accompany H. Res. 223, 64th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 940, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1916), p. 2.

709 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Accounts, Providing for 

the Purchase and Installation of an Electromechanical Voting Machine 

in the House of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 497, 

67th Cong., 4th sess., H. Rept. 1739 (Washington: GPO, 1923), p. 

1. See also, “Numbered Gallery Seats Urged in House Resolution,” 

Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1923, p. 11. 

710 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, hearings on H. Con. Res. 18, 79th 

Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 20 and Apr. 24, 1945 (Washington: GPO, 

1945), pp. 316–317, 343. 

711 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, hearings pursuant to S. Con. Res. 

2, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., May 10, 17–19, 27, 1965, June 2, 1965, Aug. 

10, 16–17, 1965 (Washington: GPO, 1965), pp. 6, 12, 37–38, 198, 

244–245, 247–250, 283, 290, 293-295, 518, 525–526, 529–534, 

1494–1497, 1600–1601, 1611–1615, 1617.

712 Meeting, Records of the House Democratic Caucus, Minutes 

of Jan. 9, 1969, container 2, folder 5, Manuscript Division, Library 

of Congress. 

713 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, 

Computer System-Vote Recording Procedures, unpublished hearing, 

91st Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 1, 1969, p. 4.

714 In the 86th Congress (1959–1960) the Committee on House 

Administration renamed the Subcommittee on Offi ce Equipment 

as the Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce 

Equipment. Th e Subcommittee on Offi ce Equipment had been 

created during the 84th Congress (1955–1956). 

715 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment, 

Computer System-Vote Recording Procedures, unpublished hearing, 

91st Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 1, 1969, p. 7.

716 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, report to accompany H.R. 17654, 91st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1215 (Washington: GPO, 1970).

717 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), pp. 25818–25829.

718 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25818.

719 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1157, Oct. 26, 1970.

720 Informatics, Electronic Voting System for the House of Representatives, Mar. 16, 1971, p. 2-1, located at the Center for Legislative 

Archives, National Archives and Records Administration.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 319

721 Ibid., pp. 7–6.

722 H. Res. 601 (92nd Congress), agreed to Nov. 9, 1971.

723 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing Funds for the Expenses of the Committee on House Administration 

to Provide for Maintenance and Improvement on Ongoing Computer 

Services for the House of Representatives and for the Investigation of 

Additional Computer Services for the House of Representatives, report 

to accompany H. Res. 601, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 92-607 

(Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 3. See also “Providing Funds for 

Computer Services for House of Representatives,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 117, part 31 (Nov. 9, 1971), pp. 40015–40017.

724 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Electronic Voting System for the United States House of Representatives, 

committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 31, 1975 (Washington: 

GPO, 1975), pp. 14–15. Th is committee print reviews the history 

of the electronic voting system and explains its operation.

725 David S. Broder, “Th e House: A New Era,” Washington Post, 

Feb. 18, 1973, p. B6.

726 “Seating of Members,” Congressional Record, vol. 50, part 1 

(Apr. 7, 1913), pp. 68–69. Th e assigning of seats in the House of 

Representatives was abolished during the 63rd Congress (1913–1914).

727 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25825.

728 “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (Oct. 13, 1972), pp. 36005–36012.

729 “Call of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 119 part 2, (Jan. 

23, 1973), p. 1793.

730 Letter from Wayne L. Hays, chairman, Committee on House 

Administration, to Melissa L. Hogan, contract administrator, Control Data Corporation, Mar. 27, 1973, located at the Center for Legislative Activities, National Archives and Records Administration. 

731 Letter from Wayne L. Hays, chairman, Committee on House 

Administration, to O.M. McCall, marketing representative, Control 

Data Corporation, Oct. 1, 1974, located at the Center for Legislative 

Activities, National Archives and Records Administration.

732 Th e number of voting stations in the House of Representatives 

has been placed at between 44 and 47 by various sources since 1973. 

In committee prints published in 1972, 1975, 1977, and 1982, the 

Committee on House Administration listed 44 voting stations. See 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e Electronic 

Voting System for the United States House of Representatives, committee 

print, 97th Cong. 2nd sess., Aug. 30, 1982 (Washington: GPO, 1982), 

p. 2. Currently, the clerk of the House reports that there are 46 voting 

stations. See U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate 

the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007, Member Briefi ng on Voting in the House of Representatives—Th e Rostrum and the Electronic 

Voting System: A “Walkthrough” by the Clerk of the House Lorraine C. 

Miller, unpublished hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 18, 2007, p. 7.

733 “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (Oct. 13, 1972), p. 36006.

734 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Electronic Voting System for the United States House of Representatives,

committee print, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 30, 1982 (Washington: 

GPO, 1982), p. 4.

735 Ibid.

736 Pursuant to Rule XX, cl. 2 (a), the minimum time for a 

recorded vote or quorum call is 15 minutes, except as authorized 

under Rule XX, cl. 8 or cl. 9, or Rule XVIII, cl. 6, where the 

Speaker (or chairman in the Committee of the Whole) may reduce 

to fi ve minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 

question arising without intervening business after an electronic 

vote on another question if notice of possible fi ve-minute voting for a given series of votes was issued before the preceding 

electronic vote.

737 Pursuant to Speaker’s voting policies in eff ect since 1975, vote 

changes can be made electronically for the fi rst 10 minutes of a 

vote. After 10 minutes, changes must be made using a teller card in 

the well. For votes of fewer than 15 minutes, changes can be made 

electronically at any time during the vote.

738 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Electronic Voting System for the United States House of Representatives, 

committee print, 97th Cong. 2nd sess., Aug. 30, 1982 (Washington: 

GPO, 1982), p. 4. 

739 Th e Committee on House Administration printed Th e Electronic Voting System for the United States House of Representatives 

in the 92nd Congress (Sept. 19, 1972), the 94th Congress (Jan. 31, 

1975), the 95th Congress (Sept. 1, 1977), the 96th Congress (Apr. 15, 

1979), and in the 97th Congress (Aug. 30, 1982). Th e committee has 

not printed this guidebook since the 97th Congress.

740 Letter from Wayne L. Hays, chairman, Committee on House 

Administration, to Rep. William M. Ketchum, Apr. 18, 1973, 

located at the Center for Legislative Activities, National Archives 

and Records Administration.

741 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997).

742 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 97th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 99.

743 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 99th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 108.

744 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 100th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), 

pp. 73, 101.
320 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

745 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the 

Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007, Final Report and Summary 

of Activities, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-885 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008), p. 3.

746 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 109th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 21.

747 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 111th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 5.

748 Ronald Garay, “Implementing Televised Coverage of Sessions of the U.S. Congress, Journalism Quarterly, v. 55, Autumn 

1978, p. 527. See also: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, 

Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: Report of the Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee on Broadcasting to the Committee on Rules on H. Res. 

875, committee print, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 23, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 3.

749 Rep. George Meader, “Televising Committee Hearings,” Congressional Record, vol. 98, May 8, 1952, pp. A2836-A2837 (extension 

of remarks). 

750 Newton N. Minow, John Bartlow Martin, and Lee M. Mitchell, Presidential Television (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 107. 

751 Rep. Samuel T. Rayburn, “Televising of Committee Hearings,” 

remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 98, Feb. 25, 1952, 

pp. 1334–1335. 

752 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee 

on Broadcasting to the Committee on Rules on H. Res. 875, committee print, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 23, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 

1976), p. 3. Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, included 

a provision changing the Rules of the House to permit individual 

committees to allow broadcasts of their hearings. P.L. 91-510, 84 

Stat. 1153-1155, sec 116 (Oct. 26, 1970).

753 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Broadcasting House and Senate Proceedings: Interim Report on 

Congress and the Mass Media, 93rd Cong, 2nd sess., S. Rept. 93-1275 

(Washington: GPO, 1974), pp. 1–2; and U.S. Congress, House 

Committee on Rules, Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: 

Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broadcasting to the Committee 

on Rules on H. Res. 875, pp. 1, 7.

754 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on 

Broadcasting to the Committee on Rules on H. Res. 875, p. 3.

755 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: A Supplemental Report of the Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee on Broadcasting to the Committee on Rules on H. Res. 

875, p. 1. See also: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, 

Broadcast Coverage of House Floor Proceedings: A Second Supplemental Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broadcasting to the 

Committee on Rules on H. Res. 1502, committee print, 94th Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1976); Bruce F. Freed, “House Leadership Opposes Broadcast Plan,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly 

Report, vol. 34, Mar. 20, 1976, p. 623; Bruce F. Freed, “Rules 

Panel Kills Plan to Televise Debates,” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 34, Mar. 27, 1976, p. 690; and Donald Smith 

and Th omas P. Southwick, “Senate Likely to Outstrip House in 

Reforms,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 34, Nov. 27, 

1976, pp. 3236–3237.

756 “Providing for Radio and Television Coverage of House 

Proceedings,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, Oct. 27, 1977, pp. 

35425–35437.

757 Senate Resolution 268—Providing for Radio Coverage of 

Senate Proceedings During Consideration of the Panama Canal 

Treaty,” Congressional Record, vol. 124, Feb. 2, 1978, p. 1967.

758 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 

(Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 7; and Guide to Congress, 5th ed., 2 

vols. (Washington: CQ Press, 2000), v. 1, p. 482.

759 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, p. 7. 

760 Quotes are found in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the Ninety-Sixth Congress, p. 7; Guide to 

Congress, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Washington: CQ Press, 2000), vol. 1, p. 

482; and Congress and the Nation: Vol. V, 1977–1980 (Washington: 

Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1981), p. 920. 

761 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, p. 8. 

762 Ibid., p. 12.

763 Ibid. 

764 Quotes are drawn from: Ronald Garay, Congressional Television: A Legislative History (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood 

Press, 1984), pp. 141–142. For the actual testimony see: Testimony 

of Neal Gregory, former information policy liaison, Committee on 

House Administration, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration, Television and Radio Coverage of Proceedings in 

the Senate Chamber, hearings on S. Res. 20, 97th Cong., 1st sess., May 

5, 1981 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 190. 

765 Ronald Garay, “Broadcasting of Congressional Proceedings,” 

in Donald C. Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds., 

Th e Encyclopedia of Congress, 4 vols. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 

1995), pp. 202–203.

766 Rep. Al Gore, “First Day of Televising of House Proceedings 

A Historic Occasion,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 5 (Mar. 

19, 1979), p. 5411.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 321

767 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

of the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 108th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), 

p. 23.

768 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 109th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

p. 23.

769 Ibid., p. 24.

770 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 

56; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 111th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 

43; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 31.

771 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 31. Clause 4(b) of House Rule XI states: 

“In addition, it is the intent of this clause that radio and television 

tapes and television fi lm of any coverage under this clause may not 

be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign 

material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for 

elective public offi ce.” See, U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jeff erson’s 

Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 111-

157 (Washington: GPO, 2011), § 807, p. 602.

772 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 111th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 7.

773 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. 

Doc. 109-157, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2007).

774 60 Stat. 826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

775 34 Stat. 1365, ch. 2918 (Mar. 4, 1907); 35 Stat. 578 (May 28, 

1908); 2 U.S.C. § 2001.

776 U.S. Congress, House Office of Inspector General, Audit 

Report—Improvements are Needed in the Architect of the Capitol’s 

Cost and Work Order Management Processes for House Offi ce Buildings, Report No. 98-AOC-10, Sept. 1, 1998, p. 3.

777 U.S. Congress, House Offi ce of Inspector General, Advisory 

Report on the Fire Protection Systems in the House Complex, Report 

No. 02-HOC-02, Feb. 7, 2002; U.S. Congress. House Offi ce of 

Inspector General, Advisory Report on the Fire Protection Systems in 

the House Complex, Report No. 00-HOC-02, May 1, 2000; and 

U.S. Congress, House Offi ce of Inspector General, General Fire 

Protection Systems Do Not Adequately Protect the House, Report No. 

98-HOC-20, Dec. 18, 1998.

778 Testimony of Robert Ney, Oversight Hearings on Capitol Security, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, pp. 2–3.

779 Dear Colleague letter of Apr. 29, 2005, available on the website 

of the Committee on House Administration at [http://cha.house.

gov/services/dear_cols.aspx], accessed Jan. 9, 2006.

780 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Ninth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. 

Doc. 108-241, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005).

781 Th e idea for a center dates at least to the mid-1970s, when the 

Architect of the Capitol issued Toward a Master Plan for the United 

States Capitol. Additional momentum came in the early 1990s, 

when the Architect was authorized to use funds to develop a design 

concept, and the United States Capitol Preservation Commission 

was established. Multiple attempts to authorize construction preceded appropriations eventually provided in 1998 (P.L. 105-277). 

For example, during the 104th Congress, bills were introduced in 

both the House (H.R. 1230) and Senate (S. 954) which would 

have authorized a Capitol Visitor Center, with one House hearing held on June 22, 1995. In the 105th Congress, bills were again 

introduced (H.R. 20, H.R. 4347, and S. 1508), with one House 

hearing held on May 22, 1997. During the FY2000 House and 

Senate legislative branch appropriations hearings, concern was 

raised about the Architect’s projected construction schedule. On 

Mar. 3, 1999, another CVC bill (H.R. 962) was introduced, but 

no further action was taken. 

782 Th e United States Capitol Preservation Commission was established under Title VIII of P.L. 100-696 (102 Stat. 4608-4609; 2 

U.S.C. § 2081) in November 1988 for the purpose of providing for 

the improvements in, preservation of, and acquisitions (including 

works of fi ne art and other property display) for the United States 

Capitol.

783 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1999, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 

Year 1999, conference report to accompany H.R. 4328, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 590.

784 P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 427, Sept. 29, 1999. Th is language had 

been included in the Senate-reported version of the FY2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (S. 1206).

785 Testimony of Robert Ney, Chairman of the Committee on 

House Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Oversight Hearings on Capitol Security, Emergency 

Preparedness and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, 

hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 

2003), p. 15.
322 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

786 U.S. Congress, Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008, report to 

accompany H.R. 5159, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-535 

(Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 13–14. 

787 U.S. Congress, House, Report on the Activities of the Committee 

on House Administration During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, 

111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), 

pp. 10, 16–17, 50–51.

788 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e 

Capitol Visitor Center: Th e Visitor Experience, hearing, Oct. 17, 2007 

(Washington: GPO, 2008).

789 P.L. 110-161, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2252; P.L. 111-8, Mar. 

11, 2009, 123 Stat. 831; P.L. 112-10, Apr. 15, 2011, 125 Stat. 103 

(by reference to P.L. 111-68); and, P.L. 112-74, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 

Stat. 1136.

790 Dear Colleague letters of Oct. 10, Oct. 23, and Oct. 29, 2008. 

791 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, The 

Construction of the United States Capitol: Recognizing the Contributions 

of Slave Labor, hearing, Nov. 7, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

792 P.L. 110-139, 121 Stat. 1491, Dec. 18, 2007. See also: U.S. 

Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Designation of the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center as 

Emancipation Hall, report to accompany H.R. 3315, 110th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 110-436 (Washington: GPO, 2007); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and 

Emergency Management, Emancipation Hall: A Tribute to the Slaves 

Who Helped Build the U.S. Capitol, hearings, 110th Cong., 1st sess., 

Sept. 25, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007).

793 Th ese eff orts followed the work of the Slave Labor Task Force, 

including a hearing before the Committee on House Administration on Nov. 7, 2007, and the publication of the “History of Slave 

Laborers in the Construction of the United States Capitol,” by 

William C. Allen, Architectural Historian, Offi ce of the Architect 

of the Capitol, June 1, 2005, at the direction of S. Rept. 108-307, 

report to accompany the FY2005 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill (S. 2666) available at: http://artandhistory.house.gov/

art_artifacts/slave_labor_reportl.pdf. U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Directing the Architect of the Capitol to 

Place a Marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol visitor Center 

Which Acknowledges the Roles that the Slave Played in the Construction of the United States Capitol, and for Other Purposes, report to 

accompany H.Con.Res. 135, 111th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-153 

(Washington: GPO, 2009). Other legislation was also introduced 

(S. Res. 53, S. Con. Res. 24, H. Con. Res. 125).

794 “Providing for Design of Slave Labor Marker in Capitol Visitor Center,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, part 100 

(July 7, 2009), pp. H7719-H7721, and “Directing the Architect of 

the Capitol to Place a Marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, part 

103 (July 10, 2009), p. S. 7372.

795 U.S. Congress, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the 

Committee on House Administration, H. Rept. 112-137, 112th Congress, July 7, 2011 (Washington, GPO: 2011), p. 12. 

796 For a list of these statues and additional information, see: 

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/index.cfm. A map is available at: 

http://www.visitthecapitol.gov/brochures/pdfemancipation_hall.

pdf, p. 4.

797 U.S. Congress, House, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 5 (Washington: GPO, 1907), 

sec. 7244, note 3. 

798 Robert Mills, Guide to the Capitol of the United States, Embracing Every Information Useful to the Visiter [sic] (Washington: 1834), 

pp. 6, 64. Th e “Rules and Regulations” are also found in: Clyde 

Wilson and W. Edwin Hemphill, eds., Th e Papers of John C. Calhoun, 28 vols. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 

1959-2003), vol. X (1825-1829), pp. 386-387.

799 Th e dining room is discussed in the 1902 case of Page v. District of Columbia involving the managers of the House and Senate 

restaurants, who had been convicted for selling liquor in those 

establishments. Th e D.C. Appeals Court said: “Th ese restaurants 

have been in use and operation for near a half century.” Page v. 

District of Columbia, 20 App. DC. 475 (1902).

800 U.S. Congress, House, Special Committee Appointed in Pursuance of House Resolution 236, Authority of the Committee on 

Accounts, House of Representatives, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1920 (Washington: GPO, 1934), p. 2. See also, John B. Ellis, Th e 

Sights and Sounds of the National Capitol (Chicago: Jones, Junkin 

& Co., 1869), p. 112. 

801 “House Restaurant,” Congressional Globe, vol. 39, part 1 

(Dec. 4, 1867), p. 27; “Sale of Liquor in the Capitol,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 7, part 1 (Dec. 4, 1877), pp. 10–11; U.S. Congress, 

House Committee on Rules, House Restaurant, 50th Cong., 1st

sess., Mis. Doc. 65 (Washington: GPO, 1888); [Report from the 

Committee on Accounts], Congressional Record, vol. 37, part 6 

(Apr. 25, 1904), p. 5581. In 1877, Speaker Samuel J. Randall stated 

on the House fl oor that his “immediate predecessor declined to 

exercise the right of appointing the keeper of the House restaurant 

and handed it over to the care of the Committee on Buildings and 

Grounds,” and he also had declined to make the appointment as 

well. “Sale of Liquor in the Capitol,” Congressional Record, vol. 

7, part 1 (Dec. 4, 1877), p. 10. On Apr. 25, 1904, the House 

approved H. Res. 356, which stated in part that the “privilege of 

conducting said luncheon rooms shall be granted by the Speaker 

of the House to such person or persons as he shall select, who shall 

be subject to removal by him and who shall be governed by such 

rules for the conduct of said luncheon rooms as he may prescribe.” 

House Journal, 58th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 25, 1904 (Washington: 

GPO, 1904), p. 680. 

802 “Th e House Restaurant,” Congressional Globe, vol. 39, part 1 

(Dec. 17, 1867), p. 232.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 323

803 “House Restaurant,” Congressional Globe, vol. 41, part 3 (Apr. 

8, 1869), p. 644. Some of the problems associated with the House 

Restaurant are discussed in reports issued by the committee in 1894 

and 1896; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Buildings 

and Grounds, House Restaurant, report, 53rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 534 (Washington: GPO, 1894); and U.S. Congress, House 

,Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Additional Room 

for House Restaurant, report to accompany H. Res. 118, 54rd Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 74 (Washington: GPO, 1896). Also, at one point, 

the Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics was called upon to 

deal with a restaurant related matter. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, Ventilation of Dining Room, 

House of Representatives, report to accompany Mis. Doc. 92, 52nd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2595 (Washington: GPO, 1893).

804 “House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 38, part 3 (Apr. 

2, 1904), p. 4199 (“In vogue” appears to refer to selection of the 

manager by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on Accounts, Restaurant of the House 

of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 356, 58th Cong., 

2nd sess, H. Rept. 2849 (Washington: GPO, 1904), pp. 1–2; and 

House Journal, 58th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 25, 1904 (Washington: 

GPO, 1904), p. 680.

805 “House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 61, part 2 (June 

2, 1921), pp. 2034–2035. See also: U.S. Congress, Special Committee Appointed in Pursuance of House Resolution 236, Authority 

of the Committee on Accounts, House of Representatives, report, 73rd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1920 (Washington: GPO, 1934).

806 “House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 62, part 1 (Dec. 

22, 1921), pp. 706–709; “House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 62, part 1 (Jan. 4, 1922), pp. 780–783; and U.S. Congress, 

House Committee on Accounts, Control of the House Restaurant, 

report to accompany H. Res. 254, 67th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

542 (Washington: GPO, 1922).

807 Initially, the Architect’s responsibility for the maintenance and 

operation of the House restaurant was approved in H. Res. 590 (76th

Cong.). “Operation of House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 

86, part 10 (Sept. 5, 1940), p. 11552. A month later, H. Res. 590 was 

made permanent in: 54 Stat. 1056-1057, sec. 208(a), Oct. 9, 1940.

808 60 Stat. 826, Aug. 2, 1946. Th e act further authorized and 

directed the Architect of the Capitol to prepare plans and submit 

them to Congress for remodeling several rooms in the Capitol and 

House and Senate offi ce buildings, including the House Restaurants 

[60 Stat. 838. Aug. 2, 1946].

809 Rep. Clare Eugene Hoff man, “Food Facilities of the House of 

Representatives,” Congressional Record, remarks in the House, vol. 

100, part 11 (July 30, 1954), p. 14842.

810 See: Letter from Executive Vice President Nationwide Food 

Service, Inc., to Lyle Snader, Clerk of the House of Representatives, 

Dec. 10, 1954, 83rd Congress, fi le HR 84A-F8.8, Records of the 

Committee on House Administration, Records of the House of 

Representatives, Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, DC. A copy of the survey is found in the same fi le. 

811 “House Commission Starts Action to Extend East Front of 

Capitol,” Washington Post, Apr. 23, 1955, p. 1; “President Asks 5 

million to Remodel the Capitol,” New York Times, May 3, 1955, 

p. 12; and “New Face for the Capitol,” New York Times, May 8, 

1955, p. E9.

812 Dear Colleague letter from Rep. John Lesinski of Michigan, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Restaurant, Feb. 14, 1955, 

and Rep. Walter Horan of Washington to Chairman John Lesinski, Feb. 21, 1955, 83rd Congress, fi le HR 848-F8.8, Records of the 

Committee on House Administration, Records of the House of Representatives, Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, 

DC; and Minutes of the Subcommittee on the Restaurant, Mar. 1, 

1955, 83rd Congress, fi le HR 84A-F8.8, Records of the Committee 

on House Administration, Records of the House of Representatives, 

Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, DC.

813 Th e New House Offi ce Building is currently known as the 

Longworth House Offi ce Building. See U.S. Congress, Architect 

of the Capitol, “Th e Longworth House Offi ce Building,” [http://

www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/lhob.cfm], accessed Mar. 21, 2012.

814 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Improving Food Service Facilities in the House of Representatives, report 

to accompany H. Res. 218, 84th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 432 

(Washington: GPO, 1955); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Improving Food Service Facilities in the House of 

Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 219, 84th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 433 (Washington: GPO, 1955); “Capitol Restaurant Facilities,” Congressional Record, vol. 101, part 4 (Apr. 21, 

1955), p. 4919; “Improving Food Service Facilities in the House 

of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 101, part 4 (Apr. 21, 

1955), p. 4919; and P.L. 242, 69 Stat. 515-516, Aug. 5, 1955. See 

also: “$93 million Passed for Congress: Bill Includes Extension of 

U.S. Capitol’s East Front,” Washington Post/Times-Herald, July 30, 

1955, p. 21. 

815 Rep. Omar Burleson, “Report of the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 1st Session, 84th Congress,” extension 

of remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 101, part 10 (Aug. 2, 1955), 

p. 13149.

816 John J. Lindsay, “New Comforts Offered by Refurbished 

Capitol,” Washington Post/Times-Herald, Jan. 2, 1962, p. A6; and 

William Edwards, “Congressmen Now Undefi led By Hoi Polloi: 

New Luxury Café and Gaudy Hideaways!” Chicago Daily Tribune, 

Jan. 10, 1962, p. 4.

817 H. Res. 71 (91st Cong.).

818 “To Create a Committee on the House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 115, part 14 (July 10, 1969), pp. 19080–19081. 

Th e Architect of the Capitol continued to manage the day-to-day 

operations of the food services in the House until they were contracted out in 1987.
324 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

819 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, unpublished hearings, 91st Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 13 and Nov. 25, 1969 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS No. 91 HHad. T.18, T19).

820 “Creating a Select Committee on the House Restaurant,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 117, part 6 (Mar. 25, 1971), pp. 7961–H. 

Res. 317 was incorporated into P.L. 92-51, 85 Stat. 133, July 9, 1971. 

See also: Philip Warden, “Congressmen Eat Well on Tab; Owe Food 

Bills of $62,151,” Chicago Tribune, Mar. 27, 1971, p. 13.

821 “Too Many Chiefs Spoil House Food Operation, Washington 

Post/Times-Herald, May 29, 1971, p. B2; Th omas J. Foley, “Capitol 

Cafes Make Friends, But No Profi ts,” Los Angeles Times, June 7, 

1971, p. 1; and Th omas J. Foley, “Capitol Restaurants,” Washington 

Post/Times-Herald, June 17, 1971, p. B20.

822 “Select Committee on the House Restaurant,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 119, part 3 (Feb. 7, 1973), p. 3680.

823 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing Funds for Expenses Incurred by the Select Committee on the House 

Restaurant, report to accompany H. Res. 202, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 93-60 (Washington: GPO, 1973), pp. 3–4.

824 “Providing Funds For Expenses Incurred by the Select Committee on the House Restaurant,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, 

part 9 (Apr. 29, 1974), p. 12020.

825 “Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 120, part 25 (Sept. 30, 1974), p, 32961; “Committee 

Reform Amendments,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 26 (Oct. 

8, 1974), pp. 34469–34470. 

826 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 122.

827 “Committee Reform Amendments,” Congressional Record, vol. 

120, part 25 (Sept. 30, 1974), p. 32961; and “Committee Reform 

Amendments,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 26 (Oct. 8, 

1974), p. 34470.

828 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 

122.

829 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Rules Adopted 

by the Committees of the House of Representatives, committee print, 

96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 114. Pursuant to 

committee rule 16, the Subcommittee on Services had jurisdiction 

over the restaurants.

830 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 

(Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 195.

831 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 85. Regethermic systems allowed 

advance preparation of food items, which are then chilled until 

needed.

832 Ibid, pp. 85–86.

833 Ibid, pp. 86–87.

834 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1173 

(Washington: GPO, 1984), pp. 82–83.

835 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), 

p. 42.

836 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Rules Adopted by 

the Committees of the House of Representatives, committee print, 99th 

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), p. 140. Committee Rule 

16(b) stated, “Th e Chairman of the Committee may appoint such 

ad hoc subcommittees as he deems appropriate.”

837 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), p. 42.

838 Ibid, p. 43.

839 Ibid. Chairman Frank Annunzio appointed Representative 

Leon Panetta as the chair of the task force, and Representatives 

Joseph Gaydos, Ed Jones, Bill Frenzel, and Robert Badham as 

members. 

840 Ibid, p. 46.

841 Ibid, p. 50.

842 Ibid, p. 101.

843 Ibid, p. 103.

844 Ibid, pp. 102–103.

845 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), 

pp. 10–11.

846 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report of the Activities of the Committee of House Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: 

GPO, 2011), p. 37.

847 U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, House Restaurant System: 

Response to Questions on Service America Corporation’s Operations of 

House Food Services, GAO/AIMD-94-32, Apr. 1994, p. 21.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 325

848 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred First Congress, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 63.

849 U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, House Restaurant System: 

Response to Questions on Service America Corporation’s Operations of 

House Food Services, GAO/AIMD-94-32, Apr. 1994, p. 22.

850 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992), p. 21. 

851 Timothy J. Bulger, “Panel Bans Practice of Members’ Signing for Meals in Favor of Credit Cards, Cash,” Roll Call, Sept. 30, 

1991, p. 3; Adam Clymer, “Congressman Said to Be Dining on 

the House,” New York Times, Oct. 3, 1991, p. A16; Guy Gugliotta, 

“House Members Owe $300,000 for Hill Meals,” Washington Post,

Oct. 3, 1991, p. A1; Editorial, “Free Eats on Capitol Hill,” Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1991, p. A22; and Lois Romano, “Food Fight: Th e 

Man in the Middle. Committee Chairman Charlie Rose, Trying to 

Keep Tabs on the House,” Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1991, pp. B1–B2.

852 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Th ird Congress, 

103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 (Washington: GPO, 1995), 

p. 4. Th e Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was 

created with the adoption of H. Res. 423 during the 102nd Congress (1991–1992) and was given authority over all House fi nancial 

and non-legislative services. See also CRS Report RS22731, Chief 

Administrative Offi cer of the House: History and Organization, by 

Jacob R. Straus. Th e Director of Non-Legislative and Financial 

Services was replaced by the Chief Administrative Offi cer of the 

House in the 104th Congress.

853 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Application of Laws and Administration of the Hill, hearings, 

103rd Cong., 1st sess., May 27, 1993, June 8, 1993, and June 17, 1993, 

S.Hrg. 103-115 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 77.

854 Telephone conversation between the author and Charles T. 

Howell, chief counsel, Committee on House Administration, Feb. 

5, 2008. See also Mary Jacoby, “Outsiders to Run House Eateries: 

Will Account for Staff Cuts,” Roll Call, Mar. 10, 1994, p. 1.

855 U.S. Congress, House Office of Inspector General, Audit 

Report—Improved Controls Could Prevent Abuse of the House Restaurant System Unemployment Compensation Program, 95-CAO-26, 

Aug. 11, 1995, p. 4.

856 P.L. 103-69, 107 Stat. 695, Aug. 11, 1993.

857 During the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995–1998) the 

Committee on House Administration was renamed the Committee on House Oversight. Th e name was changed back to the 

Committee on House Administration at the beginning of the 

106th Congress.

858 According to the Federal Acquisition Institute, a request for 

proposal (RFP) is a solicitation for off ers under negotiation procedures. Federal Acquisition Institute, Glossary of Acquisition Terms, 

FAC-97-09, Dec. 1998 [http://www.fai.gov/pdfs/glossary.pdf], p. 

92, accessed Mar. 21, 2012.

859 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress Together 

with Minority and Additional Views, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 26.

860 Ibid, p. 28.

861 Ibid, p. 30.

862 Ibid, p. 32.

863 Ibid, p. 33.

864 For additional information on the Capitol Visitor Center, see 

CRS Report R42397, Th e Capitol Visitor Center: History, Development, and Funding, by Ida A. Brudnick.

865 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Chief Administrative Offi cer, “House Cafeteria to Undergo Major Menu, Operational Changes in December,” press release, Nov. 13, 2007. Food 

service in the Ford Cafeteria is scheduled to transition from the 

current vendor, the Skenteris family, to Restaurant Associates in 

September 2008. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Chief 

Administrative Offi cer, “CAO Allows Current Ford Cafeteria 

Vendor to Remain Until September 2008,” press release, Nov. 

16, 2007.

866 Th e bills referred to the Committee on House Administration 

were: H.R. 913, H.R. 1812, H.R. 2182, H.R. 2183, H.Con.Res. 

89, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3847, H.R. 4015, and H.R. 5142. H.R. 9352 

dealt with a federal government-wide recycling program and was 

referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

867 Two bills and one resolution were referred to the Committee 

on Government Operations. Th ese measures dealt with federal 

government-wide recycling, which would have also included Congress. Th ese measures were: H.R. 3952 (93rd Congress), H.R. 594 

(94th Congress), and H. Con. Res. 397 (94th Congress). H. Con. 

Res. 397 was also referred to the Committee on House Administration. Th e Committee on Government Operations did not take 

further action on these proposals.

868 H. Res. 104 (101st Congress), agreed to by voice vote, Aug. 1, 1989.

869 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 112.

870 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary 

Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of in the Operation of the House 
326 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 104, 101st Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 1.

871 40 C.F.R. § 246.101. See also, William D. Robinson, ed., Th e 

Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide (New York, NY: John 

Wiley & Sons, 1986), p. 216. Source separation is an alternative to 

central disposal of waste. Instead of combining all waste materials 

prior to disposal, source separation divides the material, based on 

categories designed to maximize their reuse, prior to disposal.

872 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary 

Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of in the Operation of the House 

of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 104, 101st Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 2.

873 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 112.

874 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary 

Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of in the Operation of the House 

of Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 104, 101st Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 2.

875 Rep. Jim Bates, “Requiring Architect of the Capitol to Establish Voluntary Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of by the 

House,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 13 (Aug. 1, 1989), p. 

17172.

876 “Requiring Architect of the Capitol to Establish Voluntary 

Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of by the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, Part 13 (Aug. 1, 1989), p. 17172.

877 House Rule X, clause 1(k). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress, prepared by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 111-157 (Washington: 

GPO, 2011), § 724, pp. 453–456.

878 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 101st 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 

117–118.

879 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 103rd 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 5.

880 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 37–39.

881 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 14.

882 Th e House composting program was suspended in Jan. 2011. 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 

112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 9.

883 U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

“House Democrats Urge Greening of Capitol Complex,” press 

release, Mar. 2, 2007, http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/

press?id=0082.

884 U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House 

of Representatives, Executive Summary of Green the Capitol Initiative Preliminary Report, 110th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3. Copies can be 

obtained either from CRS or the Committee on House Administration.

885 U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House 

of Representatives, Preliminary Report Green the Capitol Initiative, 

110th Cong., 1st sess.; and U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative 

Offi cer of the House of Representatives, Green the Capitol Initiative Final Report Executive Summary, 110th Cong., 1st sess.; and U.S. 

Congress, Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House of Representatives, Green the Capitol Initiative Final Report, 110th Cong., 1st sess. 

Copies can be obtained either from CRS or the Committee on 

House Administration.

886 U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

“Pelosi: As Part of ‘Green the Capitol’ Initiative, House to Reduce 

Energy Consumption by 50 Percent in Just 10 Years,” press release, 

June 21, 2007.

887 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, “Committee on House Administration Suspends Composting Program 

After Conducting a Review of the Programs’ Financial and Environmental Impact,” press release, Jan. 25, 2011. Copies can be 

obtained either from CRS or the Committee on House Administration.

888 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 5.

889 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 108th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 21.

890 U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management, Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics, Employment and Trends as of January 2006 (Washington: OPM, 2006), Table 9.

891 An Act To Amend the Acts approved March 3, 1925 and July 3, 

1926, known as the District of Columbia Traffi c Acts, and So Forth, 

P.L. 742, ch. 317, 46 Stat. 1424-1425 (Feb. 27, 1931); District of 

Columbia Code § 50-2201.03, .25, .26.

892 Letter from Paul Schenck, William Cole, and Charles Deane 

to Karl M. Le Compte, Chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration, Feb. 20, 1953, parking correspondence; HR83AF8.2, 83rd Congress; Records of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 327

893 Committee on House Administration, Special Subcommittee 

on Parking, 88th Congress; Records of the U.S. House of Representatives, Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, DC.

894 H. Res. 282, 91st Congress, agreed to on Mar. 13, 1969; H. 

Res. 24, 92nd Congress, agreed to on Feb. 10, 1971; and H. Res. 

145, 93rd Congress, agreed to on Feb. 7, 1973.

895 “House Resolution 208, To Provide Additional Parking Facilities,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Feb. 24, 1975, p. 4011. Made 

permanent by P.L. 94-59, 89 Stat. 298 (July 25, 1975).

896 Ibid.

897 P.L. 94-59, 89 Stat. 298 (July 25, 1975).

898 See for example: P.L. 109-55, title 2 (General Provisions) sec. 

201, 119 Stat. 587 (Aug. 2, 2005).

899 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

Ninety-Fourth Congress, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1790 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 116.

900 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 86.

901 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred First 

Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: 

GPO, 1991), p. 109.

902 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 10.

903 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 

2011), p. 51; and Adoption of Committee Resolution 112–4, the House 

Parking Policy for the 112th Congress, U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, hearings, Organizational Meeting, Jan. 25, 

2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 31–32.

904 P.L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 3012, Title XIX (Revenue Provisions), 

sec. 1911 (Oct. 24, 1992). 

905 Th e Inspector General’s offi ce was created pursuant to House 

Resolution 423, 102nd Congress and the House of Representatives 

Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, 

110 Stat. 1733 (Aug. 20, 1996). Th e Government Accountability 

Offi ce was renamed by the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 

2004, P.L. 108-271, 118 Stat. 811 (July 7, 2004).

906 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules 

of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred Tenth 

Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), sec. 752.

907 Th is transfer was authorized by the Architect of the Capitol 

Human Resources Act, a section of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-283, 108 Stat. 1423, July 22, 1994) 

pursuant to direction of the House Committee on Appropriations 

(U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Bill, 1995, a Report to accompany H.R. 4454, 

103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-517 (Washington: GPO, 1994).)

908 P.L. 570, 60 Stat. 718 (July 31, 1946); 2 U.S.C. § 1961. Th e 

Capitol Police Board consists of the Architect of the Capitol, the 

House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, and the Chief of the Capitol Police (acting in an ex-offi cio, 

non-voting capacity).

909 Th e Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1997 transferred 

responsibility for the maintenance of security systems from the 

Architect to the Capitol Police Board and clarifi ed the resulting 

delineation of responsibilities, eff ective Oct. 1, 1996 (P.L. 104-197, 

110 Stat. 2413 (Sept. 16, 1996), 40 U.S.C. § 212a-4a). 

910 Juliet Eilperin, “Parking Attendants No More. In Wake of 

Oklahoma City Bomb, House Now Has ‘Parking Security’ Force,” 

Roll Call, Nov. 9, 1995, p. 14.

911 U.S. Congress, House Inspector General, “Audit ReportParking Operations Would Benefi t from Further Improvements,” 

Report No. 97-SAA-01, Feb. 13, 1997, p. 2, Copy available from 

Committee.

912 Testimony of Robert Ney, Chairman of the Committee on 

House Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Hearing on Security Updates Since September 11, 

2001, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003), pp. 2–3.

913 Ibid., pp. 18–21.

914 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

108–816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 24.

915 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110–

924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 6. Detailed regulations are set 

forth on pp. 69 and 70.

916 U.S. Congress, House, Inventory of Public Property: Letter From 

the Architect of the Capitol, 44th Cong., 1st sess., H. Mis. Doc. 39 

(Washington: GPO, 1876), p. 5; and U.S. Congress, House, Inventory of Public Property in Possession of the Doorkeeper of the House of 

Representatives, 44th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Mis. Doc. 5 (Washington: 

GPO, 1876), p. 7. 

917 “Barbers’ Shops in the Capitol: One of Th em Burned Out Without the Watchmen’s Knowledge,” New York Times, Dec. 3, 1880, p. 1. 
328 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

918 “Government Perks: Th ings the President, His Cabinet and 

Congress Get Without Paying,” Atlantic Constitution, Apr. 13, 1890, 

p. 8. See also: “Congressional Barbers,” New York Times, Dec. 4, 

1880, p. 4; and “With Congress Away: Th e Capitol Is a Busy Hive 

of Industry in Summer,” Washington Post, Aug. 19, 1900, p. 14.

919 U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Commission to Direct and 

Supervise the Construction of the House Offi ce Building, 61st Cong., 3rd

sess., H. Rept. 2991 (Washington: GPO, 1912), pp. 14, 17, 345–35, 

38–39, 43, 48, 56. 

920 “Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill, Congressional Record, vol. 51, Apr. 3, 1914, pp. 6210–6211; and P.L. 

63-127, 38 Stat. 462 (July 16, 1914). 

921 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Final Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, 95th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 273.

922 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Final Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, 95th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 273.

923 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 

(Washington: GPO, 1985), p. 66. 

924 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Final Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, 95th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 273.

925 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management, 95th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 95-232 (Washington: GPO, 1977), v. 1, 

pp. 211–212, 801; U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, Final Report of the Commission on Administrative 

Review, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 

1977), v. 1, pp. 273–274. At the time, the House Commission on 

Administrative Review reported that there were 17 barber shop 

employees on the House payroll. 

926 U.S. Congress, House, Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 

1975, report together with separate and dissenting views to accompany H.R. 16900, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1378 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974), p. 19; and Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1975, 

P.L. 93-554, 88 Stat. 1776 (Dec. 27, 1974).

927 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management, 95th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 95-232 (Washington: GPO, 1977), v. 1, 

pp. 211–212, 801; U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, Final Report of the Commission on Administrative 

Review, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 

1977), v. 1, pp. 273–274.

U.S. Congress, House Commission on Administrative Review, 

Final Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, 95th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Doc. 95-272 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 273. 

928 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 

(Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 196.

929 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 86.

930 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 85.

931 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1173 

(Washington: GPO, 1983), p. 82.

932 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 99-1028 (Washington; GPO, 1986), p. 66.

933 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 423],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1995, pt. 1, pp. 11–23.

934 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

of the Activities of the Committee of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Congress, 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 10.

935 Juliet Eilperin, “Privatizing House Haircutting Shops: Getting 

Away from ‘Blue-Hair’ Image,” Roll Call, July 13, 1995, p. 3. 

936 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

98-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 21, 57–58. See also: Juliet 

Eilperin, “House Picks Barber Shop Proprietor,” Roll Call, Aug. 7, 

1995, p. 11; Kathy Kiely,.

937 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Division G, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005, Title I—Legislative Branch Appropriations, House, sec. 105, 118 Stat. 3175-

3176, Dec. 8, 2004. 

938 Th ese funds had been created in P.L. 93-554, 88 Stat. 1776, 

Dec. 27, 1974; P.L. 91-145, 83 Stat. 347, Dec. 12, 1969; and P.L. 

812, 54 Stat. 1056, Oct. 9, 1940.

939 In 2009, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 

signed a new agreement for operation of the House barber shop 

with Tides LLC. Subsequently, the barber shop was renovated. 

See U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House of 

Representatives, CAO Semiannual Report: January–June 2009, 

p. 13 at http://cao.house.gov/sites/cao.house.gov/fi les/2009-janjun-SAR.pdf.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 329

940 “House Beauty Shop Employee Benefi ts,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 123, Nov. 1, 1977, p. 36299.

941 Elsie Carper, “Representatives’ Beauty Salon Is Out and Wigs 

In,” Washington Post, Dec. 5, 1967, p. C1.

942 Rep. Martha Griffi ths, “Composition of a Select Committee 

on the House Beauty Shop,” Congressional Record, remarks in the 

House, vol. 113, Dec. 6, 1967, p. 35143. 

943 Rep. Martha Griffi ths, “Composition of a Select Committee 

on the House Beauty Shop,” Congressional Record, remarks in the 

House, vol. 113, Dec. 6, 1967, p. 35143; “House Beauty Shop [ H. 

Res. 1000],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1967, 90th Cong. 

1st sess., Dec. 6, 1967, p. 1324.

944 “Appointment of Select Committee on House Beauty Shop,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 113, 90th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 6, 1967, 

p. 35143.

945 Rep. Catherine May, “House Beauty Salon Back in Business,” 

Congressional Record, extension of remarks in the House, vol. 113, 

Dec. 11, 1967, p. 35922. See also: Marie Smith, “Capitol Hill’s 

Sleeping Beauty Wide Awake,” Washington Post, Dec. 12, 1967, 

p. D1. Th e $15,000 advanced to the Committee from the House 

contingent actually constituted a loan which was to be repaid within 

a 18 months. $7,500 was repaid with the fi rst year of the Committee’s existence. Th e remainder was repaid on May 13, 1969. See: 

“Providing for Partial Repayment to Contingent Fund, House of 

Representatives, to Cover Certain Expenses of House Beauty Shop,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 114, Oct. 10, 1968, p. 30560; and “Select 

Committee on House Beauty Shop,” Congressional Record, vol. 115, 

May 13, 1969, p. 12331. 

946 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative 

Branch Appropriation Bill, 1970, report to accompany H.R. 13763, 

91st Cong. 1st sess., H. Rept. 91-487 (Washington: GPO, 1969), p. 8.

947 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1970, P.L. 91-145, 83 

Stat. 347 (Dec. 12, 1969).

948 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Fifth Congress, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1836 

(Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 188. See also: Jessie Stearns, “Panel 

Tackles Beauty Shop Sex Discrimination,” Roll Call, May 26, 1977, 

p. 3; and Jessie Stearns, “Beauty Operators, Solons, Iron Out the 

Snags,” Roll Call, July 21, 1977, p. 6.

949 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing that Employees of the House Beauty Shop Shall Be Subject 

to the Compensation Classifi cation System Established by the House 

Employees Position Classifi cation Act, and for Other Purposes, report 

to accompany H. Res. 315, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 95-756 

(Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 3. 

950 Rep. Helen Meyner, “House Beauty Shop Employee Benefi ts,” 

Congressional Record, remarks in the House, vol. 123, Nov. 1, 1977, 

p. 36302.

951 “House Beauty Shop Employee Benefi ts,”Congressional Record, 

vol. 123, Nov. 1, 1977, pp. 36298–36303, 36343–36344.

952 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 

(Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 196.

953 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 86.

954 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1173 

(Washington: GPO, 1983), pp. 82.

955 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee of the Committee on House Administration During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th Congress, 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 66.

956 David Cloud, “House May Privatize Barber Shop - Or Raise 

Prices,” Roll Call, May 11, 1987, p. 3.

957 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred and First Congress, 101st Congress, 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington, GPO, 1991), p. 46.

958 For quotes, see Rep. Mary Rose Oakar, “Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act, 1991,” Congressional Record, remarks in the 

House, vol. 136, Oct. 21, 1990, pp. 31691–31692. See also: “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991,” Congressional Record, vol. 

136, Oct. 21, 1990, pp. 31689–31695.

959 Th e appropriation is not itemized in Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act, 1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2268, but 

the budget justifi cation for 1992 indicates that $375,000 was 

provided for the revocation the Beauty Shop as part of the appropriations for the Architect of the Capitol under the House Offi ce 

Buildings account. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1992: Part 1, Justifi cation of Budget 

Estimates, hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1991), pp. 671, 704. 

960 “Public Bills and Resolutions [H. Res. 423],” Journal of the 

House of Representatives, 1992, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 8, 1992, 

pt. 1, p. 568; and “House Administrative Reform [H. Res. 423],” 

Journal of the House of Representatives, 1992, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., 

Apr. 9, 1992, pt. 1, pp. 591–599. 

961 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 423],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1995, pt. 1, pp. 11–23.

962 U.S. Congress, House, Offi ce of Inspector General, Audit 

Report: Th e House Beauty Shop’s Management Controls Do Not Adequately Safeguard Assets or Ensure Compliance with the Law, Report 
330 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

no. 95-CAO-21, July 18, 1995, p. 1; and U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Report of the Activities of the Committee 

of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred 

Fourth Congress, 104th Congress, 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington, GPO, 1997), p. 10.

963 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During 

the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

98-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 21, 57-58. See also: Juliet 

Eilperin, “House Picks Barber Shop Proprietor,” Roll Call, Aug. 7, 

1995, p. 11.

964 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447, Division G, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005, Title I—Legislative Branch Appropriations, House, sec. 105, 118 Stat. 3175-

3176, Dec. 8, 2004. 

965 Th ese funds had been created in P.L. 93-554, 88 Stat. 1776, 

Dec. 27, 1974; P.L. 91-145, 83 Stat. 347, Dec. 12, 1969; and P.L. 

812, 54 Stat. 1056, Oct. 9, 1940.

966 In 2009, the Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House signed 

a new agreement for operation of the House beauty salon with Tides 

LLC. Subsequently, the beauty salon was renovated. See U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Offi cer of the House of Representatives, 

CAO Semiannual Report: January–June 2009, p. 13 at http://cao.

house.gov/sites/cao.house.gov/fi les/2009-jan-jun-SAR.pdf.

967 John R. Hibbing, “Washington on 75 Dollars a Day: Members 

of Congress Voting on Th eir Own Tax Break,” Legislative Studies 

Quarterly, vol. 8, May 1983, p. 219. 

968 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 850, ch. 753, title VI, sec. 601 (Aug. 2, 

1946).

969 P.L. 9, 69 Stat. 11 (Mar. 2, 1955).

970 Rep. Th omas (Tip) O’Neill, “Rules of the House,” remarks 

in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 121, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 22. 

During the 110th Congress, this authority is noted in House Rule 

X, clause 1(j)(16). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s 

Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 

One Hundred Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 109-157, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 2007), sec. 724.

971 Rep. Robert Bauman, “Rules of the House,” remarks in the 

House, Congressional Record, vol. 121, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 26.

972 Rep. Phillip Burton, “Rules of the House,” remarks in the 

House, Congressional Record, vol. 121, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 26.

973 Julian E. Zelizer, On Capitol Hill: Th e Struggle to Reform Congress and its Consequences, 1948–2000 (Cambridge University Press: 

Cambridge, 2004), p. 183. 

974 “Democrats Move to Strip Hays of Power,” Congressional 

Quarterly, vol. 34, June 5, 1976, p. 1415.

975 Rep. Robert Michel, “Committee on House Administration 

Has Too Much Authority,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, June 3, 

1976, pp. 16491-16492.

976 Committee Orders 25-30 were issued on June 30, 1976 and 

addressed the allowance for airmail and special delivery stamps, 

the clerk hire allowance, the required use of a standardized voucher 

form, the telecommunications allowance, transportation and lump 

sum travel costs, and the transfer among certain allowances. “House 

Administration Committee Reforms,” Congressional Record, vol. 

122, June 30, 1976, pp. 21623-21624; and 2 U.S.C. § 57 notes.

977 P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716, sec. 704 (Nov. 30, 1989); and 

P.L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (Oct. 26, 1978).

978 “Congress Hikes Pay, Revises Ethics Law,” 1989 CQ Almanac

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc, 1989), p. 51.

979 P.L. 101-280, 104 Stat. 149 (May 4, 1990); and H. Res. 423 

(102nd Cong.). Section 11 directed that “Th e Committee on House 

Administration shall, in accordance with directives received from 

the Speaker, take such action as may be necessary to eliminate 

designated perquisites in the House.”

980 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred and First Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 

1991), p. 78.

981 Ibid, p. 105.

982 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1993), p. 83.

983 P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1718 (Aug. 20, 1996).

984 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, A Report to 

Accompany H.R. 2739, the House of Representative Administrative 

Reform Technical Corrections Act, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

104-482, (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 30.

985 106 Stat. 5145-5146 (May 18, 1992).

986 P.L. 97-51, 95 Stat. 966 (Sept. 11, 1981). See also, for example: 

“Table 33-1. Federal Programs By Agency and Account,” in Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

2012 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 2, 3. Members of Congress 

received their salaries during the Nov. 14–19, 1995, and Dec. 16, 

1995–Jan. 5, 1996, shutdowns. Numerous measures were introduced during the 104th Congress to prevent pay for Members of 

Congress in the event of a shutdown (H.R. 2281, H.R. 2639, H.R. 

2658, H.R. 2671, H.R. 2373, H.R. 2855, H.R. 2828, H.R. 2882, 

S. 1220, S. 1428, S. 1480, and H. Con. Res. 113). Th ese bills were 

referred to committee, and amendments were adopted in the Senate (to S. 1244, S. 1357, and S. 1396) but this provision was not 

enacted.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 331

987 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress Together with Minority Views, 112th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 112-137, (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 20.

988 Th is act, as well as subsequent opinions of the Attorney General, memoranda from the Department of Justice Offi ce of Legal 

Counsel (OLC), additional information on funding gaps, and 

historical developments and documents, are discussed in CRS 

Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, 

Processes, and Eff ects, by Clinton T. Brass; CRS Report RS20348, 

Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by Jessica Tollestrup; and 

CRS Report R41759, Past Government Shutdowns: Key Resources, 

by Jared Conrad Nagel and Justin Murray.

989 Th e FY1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-

53, was enacted on Nov. 19, 1995.

990 U.S. Congress, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Oversight During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, H. Rept. 

104–885, 104th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 

65-66. 

991 U.S. Congress, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Oversight During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, H. Rept. 

104–885, 104th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 

67–70.

992 U.S. Congress, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Oversight During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, H. Rept. 

104–885, 104th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 72.

993 U.S. Congress, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of 

the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred 

Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 112-137, 112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 13.

994 17 Stat. 362 (June 10, 1872).

995 2 Stat. 129 (Jan. 26, 1802). Th e Joint Committee was composed of three Members of the House and three Members of the 

Senate. 

996 Ibid.

997 18 Stat. 376 (Mar. 3, 1875).

998 H. Res. 43 (60th Cong.), agreed to by the House on Jan. 6, 

1908. 

999 H. Con. Res. 47 (73rd Cong.), agreed to by the House on Feb. 

24, 1933. See: 47 Stat. 1784 (Feb. 24, 1933). 

1000 Clarence Cannon, Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. VII (Washington: GPO, 1935), 

p. 850. 

1001 Ibid. 

1002 Charles E. Fairman, Art and Artists of the Capitol of the United 

States, 69th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 95 (Washington: GPO, 1927). 

526 p.

1003 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Compilation of Works of Art and 

Other Objects in the United States Capitol, prepared by the Architect 

of the Capitol Under the Direction of the Joint Committee on the 

Library 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 88-362 (Washington: GPO, 

1965), p. v.

1004 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Library, Compilation 

of Works of Art and Other Objects in the United States Capitol, H. 

Doc. 88-362, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., prepared by the Architect of the 

Capitol under the Direction of the Joint Committee on the Library 

(Washington: GPO, 1965), p. v.

1005 Research indicates the Committee on Accounts, predecessor 

of the Committee on House Administration, did not have jurisdiction over artwork in the Capitol and House offi ce buildings. See: 

“Rules of the House of Representatives, First Session, Seventy-Ninth 

Congress,” Journal of the House of Representatives,” 79th Cong., 1st

sess., 1945 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 821. 

1006 P.L. 80-601, 60 Stat. 826 (Aug. 2, 1946). 

1007 P.L. 80-601, 60 Stat. 838 (Aug. 2, 1946). Other Joint Committee members were the Chairman and four members of the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration.

1008 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing Rotunda Ceremonies for Statue of Brigham Young, report to 

accompany H. Con. Res. 184, 81st Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 81-1813 

(Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 1. 

1009 H. Con. Res. 350 (88th Cong.) was agreed to by the House 

on Aug. 20, 1964.

1010 Ibid., p. v.

1011 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Library, Compilation 

of Works of Art and Other Objects in the United States Capitol, H. 

Doc. 88-362, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., prepared by the Architect of the 

Capitol under the Direction of the Joint Committee on the Library 

(Washington: GPO, 1965), 426 pp.

1012 P.L. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4611 (Nov. 18, 1988). Th e Board 

was also required to consult with the House Offi ce Building Commission. 

1013 P.L. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4611 (Nov. 18, 1988).

1014 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 101st

Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), 

pp. 51–52.

1015 H. Res. 423 (102nd Cong.), agreed to by the House on Apr. 

9, 1992. 

1016 H. Res. 6 (104th Cong.), agreed to by the House on Jan. 4, 1995. 

1017 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess. H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 51–52.
332 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

1018 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 

33–34. Portraits accepted in the 110th Congress were for Rep. James 

Nussle (Budget Committee), Rep. Eligio (Kika) de la Garza (Agriculture), Rep. Th omas Davis (Government Reform), Rep. Robert 

Goodlatte (Agriculture), Rep. Joe Barton (Energy and Commerce), 

and Rep. James Oberstar (Transportation and Infrastructure). 

Portrait funds were organized for Rep. Duncan Hunter (Armed 

Services), Rep. Jerry Lewis (Appropriations), Rep. Donald Manzullo 

(Small Business), Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (Education and 

Workforce), and Rep. Charles Rangel (Ways and Means).

1019 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 111th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 19. 

Accepted portraits were for former Rep. Duncan Hunter (Armed 

Services Committee), Rep. Jerry Lewis (Appropriations), Rep. Vernon Ehlers (House Administration), Rep. Buck McKeon (Education and Labor), Rep. Bart Gordon (Science and Technology), and 

Rep. Donald Manzullo (Small Business). Th e fi ve portraits that were 

in progress were of Rep. Christopher Cox (Homeland Security), 

the late Rep. Tom Lantos (Foreign Aff airs), Rep. Colin Peterson 

(Agriculture), Rep. Chris Smith (Veterans’ Aff airs), and Rep. Nick 

J. Rahall II (Natural Resources).

1020 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 15; and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities 

of the Committee on House Administration, 112th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 7. Portraits were 

accepted for Rep. Collin Peterson (Agriculture), Rep. Edolphus 

Towns (Oversight and Government Reform), and Rep. Charles 

Rangel (Ways and Means). Requests for portraits were made for 

Rep. Ike Skelton (Armed Services), Spencer Bachus (Financial Services), Rep. John Mica (Transportation and Infrastructure), Rep. 

George Miller, and Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (House 

Administration).

1021 P.L. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4608 (Nov. 18, 1988). Commission 

membership also consists of the Senate President Pro Tempore, the 

House Speaker, the chairmen and ranking members of both the 

Joint Committee on the Library and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, the House and Senate Majority and Minority 

Leaders, and a House or Senate member appointed by either body 

to be co-chairman of the Commission, one Senator appointed by 

the President Pro Tempore, one Senator appointed by the Senate 

Minority Leader, one House Member appointed by the Speaker, and 

one House Member appointed by the House Minority Leader. Th e 

Architect of the Capitol serves as an ex-offi cio member. 

1022 Ibid.

1023 U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce, Capitol Preservation 

Fund: Audit of Fiscal Years 2008 Th rough 2010 Transactions, GAO12-85R, Oct. 14, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 4.

1024 P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 427 (Sept. 29, 1999). P.L. 106-57 

amended P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-569, 570 (Oct. 21, 1998), 

which had required approval of the Committee on House Administration, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and other “appropriate” committees, for the expenditure of funds made available to 

the Architect of the Capitol for the Capitol Visitor Center. Th e 

amendment required approval by the new Capitol Preservation 

Commission, in lieu of these committees. 

1025 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Congress, 100th

Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), p. 

28.

1026 P.L. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4612 (Nov. 18, 1988).

1027 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess. H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 16.

1028 U.S. Congress, Architect of the Capitol, Th e National Statuary 

Hall Collection, http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/index.cfm.

1029 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 109th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

pp. 12–13.

1030 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 32.

1031 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess. H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 32.

1032 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess. H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 32–33.

1033 H.R. 6336, 112th Congress.

1034 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 109th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-752 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 

25–26, 39, 45–48, 55, and 58.

1035 P.L. 109-116, 119 Stat. 2524, Dec. 1, 2005.

1036 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 111th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 19.

1037 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess. H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 33–34.
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 333

1038 Portraits added to the collection were: John Quincy Adams, 

James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Jeannette Rankin, Joseph H. 

Rainey, and Romualdo Pacheco. U.S. Congress, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 33. 

1039 Rep. Steve Cohen, “Support More Diversity in the United 

States Capitol,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 

157, daily edition (Mar. 30, 2011), p. H2049.

1040 H.R. 3368 (103rd Congress), introduced Oct. 26, 1993.

1041 Rep. Steve Cohen, “Support More Diversity in the United 

States Capitol,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 157, 

daily edition (Mar. 30, 2011), p. H2049. See also, Representative 

Steve Cohen, “Cohen Introduces Bill to Bring More Diversity to 

U.S. Capitol,” press release, Apr. 1, 2011, http://cohen.house.gov/

press-release/cohen-introduces-bill-bring-more-diversity-us-capitol.

1042 Del. Eni Faleomavaega, “Bill Permitting Each of the Territories of the United States to Provide a Statue to be Placed in Statuary 

Hall,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 

151 (Oct. 18, 2005), p. E2120.

1043 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Markup of H.R. 5493, H.R. 5711, H.R. 5681, H.R. 5682, H.R. 5717, 

and Two Committee Resolutions, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 14, 2010 

(Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 31–48; U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, To Provide for the Furnishing of Statues 

by the District of Columbia for Display in Statuary Hall in the United 

States Capitol, report to accompany H.R. 5493, 111th Cong., 2nd

sess., July 22, 2010, H. Rept. 111-561 (Washington: GPO, 2010); 

and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Furnishing of Statues by the Territories of the United States 

for Display in Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol, report to 

accompany H.R. 5717, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 30, 2010, H. Rept. 

111-583 (Washington: GPO, 2010).

1044 “Authorizing Statues in Capitol for District of Columbia and 

Territories,” Congressional Record, House debate, vol. 156, daily 

edition (Dec. 15, 2010), pp. H8492–H8495.

1045 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 157, 

daily edition (Oct. 5, 2011), p. H6624.

1046 Donald A. Ritchie, The Young Oxford Companion to the 

Congress of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 

1993), pp. 141–142.

1047 Th e House appointed its fi rst three pages, Charles B. Chambers, Edward Dunn, and John C. Burch in 1827. Ritchie, Th e Young 

Oxford Companion to the Congress of the United States, p. 141.

1048 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on the Contingent 

Expenses of the House, Report on the Contingent Expenses of the 

House of Representatives, 27th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 30 (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1842), p. 6.

1049 Ibid.

1050 Bill Severn, Democracy’s Messengers: Th e Capitol Pages (New 

York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1975), pp. 9, 33.

1051 Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to Congress, 5th ed. (Washington: CQ Press, 2000), vol. 2, pp. 802–803.

1052 Annals of Congress, vol. 13, Dec. 27, 1803, p. 790. 

1053 Congressional Globe, vol. 14, Jan. 17, 1845, p. 147.

1054 Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations, FY1902, 

31 Stat. 968 (Mar. 3, 1901). 

1055 Bill Severn, Democracy’s Messengers: Th e Capitol Pages (New 

York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1975), p. 9. See also To Provide for 

Compulsory School Attendance in District of Columbia, 43 Stat. 

806 (Feb. 4, 1925).

1056 Quotations are found in: Severn, Democracy’s Messengers: Th e 

Capitol Pages, pp. 109, 114–115; and U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch 

Appropriation Bill for 1943, hearing on H.R. 6802, 77th Cong., 2nd

sess., Mar. 31, 1942 (Washington: GPO, 1942), p. 43. See also: 

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Bill, 1943, report to accompany H.R. 6802, 

77th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1237 (Washington: GPO, 1942), p. 

3; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Bill, 1943, report to accompany H.R. 6802, 

77th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 1292 (Washington: GPO, 1942), p. 

3; and Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1943, P.L. 600, 56 

Stat. 342 (June 8, 1942). 

1057 Severn, Democracy’s Messengers: Th e Capitol Pages, pp. 116–

117. See also: “Study of Educational Facilities, Living Quarters, 

Etc., for Congressional Pages,” Congressional Record, vol. 91, Aug. 

1, 1945, pp. 8229–8230. 

1058 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, report of the Joint Committee on the 

Organization of Congress pursuant to H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 1675 (Washington: GPO, 1946), pp. 32–33.

1059 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 

839 (Aug. 2, 1946).

1060 Severn, Democracy’s Messengers: Th e Capitol Pages, p. 117.

1061 U.S. Congress, House, Select Committee on the Welfare 

and Education of Congressional Pages, Study of the General Welfare 

and Education of Congressional Pages, report under the authority of 

H. Res. 847, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 88-1945 (Washington: 

GPO, 1965), pp. 6, 8–10; and U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on 

the Organization of Congress, Organization of Congress, report 

pursuant to S. Con. Res. 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 89-1414 

(Washington: GPO, 1966), pp. 7, 51. See also: Elsie Caper, “Hill 

Unit Seeks Change in Page System,” Washington Post, Times Herald, 

Dec. 18, 1964, p. C5.

1062 William Springer, “Congressional Pages: Th eir Work and 

Schooling,” in: House Republican Task Force on Congressional 
334 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Reform and Minority Staffi ng, We Propose: A Modern Congress: 

Selected Proposals by the House Republican Task Force on Congressional Reform and Minority Staffing (New York: McGraw Hill, 

1966), pp. 183–184.

1063 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 

1198 (Oct. 26, 1970). 

1064 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Accounts, House Pages, Doorkeepers, and Reporters, 

unpublished hearings, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 16, 1956 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 84 HHad-T.2); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee 

on Accounts, To Provide a Residence for Pages, unpublished hearings, 85th Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1957 (Congressional Information 

Service, Inc, CIS-No: 85 HHad-T.5).

1065 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 

History of the Committee on House Administration, 1946–1984, by 

Paul Dwyer, report prepared for the Committee on House Administration (Washington: Nov. 17, 1987), p. 83.

1066 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to Pages, Th eir Residence, Supervision, Age Requirements and Other 

Matters, unpublished hearings, 89th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 1965 

(Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 89 HHad-T.20). 

1067 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 

1199 (Oct. 26, 1970).

1068 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1971, P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 

1991 (Jan. 8, 1971).

1069 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1973, P.L. 92-607, 86 Stat. 

1513 (Oct. 31, 1972).

1070 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 

Jurisdiction, Responsibilities and Authorities of the Committee on 

House Administration Over the Page Program of the House of Representatives, by Paul Dwyer, memorandum prepared for the Committee on House Administration (Washington: Aug., 9, 1982), p. 

9; and Testimony of W. Raymond Cooley, Deputy Doorkeeper of 

the House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, House Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1981, hearings, 96th

Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1980 (Washington: GPO, 1980), p. 91. 

1071 For a copy of the memorandum see: David C. Sharman to 

Frank Annunzio, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, July 17, 1978, reprinted in U.S. Congress, Speaker’s 

Commission on Pages, Hearings Before the Speaker’s Commission on 

Pages, hearings, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 4, 1982 (Washington: 

GPO, 1982), p. 237.

1072 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Offi cial 

Conduct, Report on Investigation, report pursuant to H. Res. 518, 

97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-965 (Washington: GPO, 1982), 

p. 10. See also: Kenneth Bredemeier, “Califano Finds ‘No Merit’ in 

Charges Made by Pages,” Washington Post, Dec. 15, 1982, p. A17; 

and Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to Congress, 5th ed. (Washington: CQ Press, 2000), p. 803, 937. 

1073 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Offi cial 

Conduct, In the Matter of Gerry E. Studds, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 98-295 (Washington: GPO, 1983); U.S. Congress, House 

Committee on Standards of Offi cial Conduct, In the Matter of 

Daniel B. Crane, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 98-296 (Washington: 

GPO, 1983); “Two Members Censured,” Congressional Quarterly 

Almanac, 98th Congress. . . . 1983 (Washington: Congressional 

Quarterly Inc., 1984), pp. 580–583; Steven V. Roberts, “Ethics 

Panel Says 2 Congressmen Had Sexual Relations With Pages,” New 

York Times, July 15, 1983, pp. A1, A18; Eric Pianin, “Committee 

Recommends House Reprimand Two for Sexual Misconduct,” 

Washington Post, July 15, 1983, pp. A1, A11; “Censure of Representative Daniel B. Crane,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, July 20, 

1983, pp. 20029–20030; and “Censure of Representative Gerry E. 

Studds,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, July 20, 1983, p. 20037.

1074 “The Speakers Commission on the Pages,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 128, July 30, 1982, p. 17041; U.S. Congress, Speaker’s 

Commission on Pages, Report to the Speaker From the Speaker’s 

Commission on Pages, committee print, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 

16, 1982 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 3. See also: U.S. Congress, 

Speaker’s Commission on Pages, Hearings Before the Speaker’s Commission on Pages, hearings, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., July 21, 22, 27, 27, 

and Aug. 4, 1982 (Washington: GPO, 1982); and Mark Stencel, 

“Other Page Controversies Have Prompted Change,” CQ Weekly, 

vol. 64, Oct. 9, 2006, p. 2705.

1075 “Establishing the House of Representatives Page Board for 

Supervision and Education of Pages,” Congressional Record, vol. 128, 

Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28031. H. Res. 611 (97th Congress) was enacted 

into permanent law in: Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 

1983, P.L. 97-377, 96 Stat. 1914, Title V, sec. 127 (Dec. 21, 1982). 

Statutory language eliminating the Doorkeeper’s position is found 

in: House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act, P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1735, Title II, sec. 204(38) 

(Aug. 20, 1966).

1076 “Establishing a Revolving Fund for the Page Residence Hall 

and the Page Meal Plan,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, Feb. 8, 

1983, p. 1878.

1077 “Limiting Use of Educational Facilities With respect to Congressional Employees Who Are Minors Other Th an Pages,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, July 21, 1983, pp. 20182–20183. 

1078 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Page Board, Final 

Report from the House of Representatives Page Board, committee 

print, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., Dec. 11, 1984 (Washington: GPO, 

1985), p. 3; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Education of House Pages, report to accompany H. Res. 234, 

98th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 98-282 (Washington: GPO, 1982); 

and “Appointment and Education of House Pages,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 129, June 29, 1983, pp. 18149-18151. H. Res. 234 was 
BEHIND THE SCENES: ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 335

enacted into law in: P.L. 98-237, 98 Stat. 479, Title I, sec. 103 (July 

17, 1984)

1079 Peter Perl, “Pages Get Own Dormitories,” Washington Post, 

May 31, 1983, pp. B1, B5; and “Education, Housing and Welfare 

of Pages,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, Aug. 4, 1983, p. 23128. 

1080 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Page Board, Final 

Report From the House of Representatives Page Board, committee 

print, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., Dec. 11, 1984 (Washington: GPO, 

1985), pp. 3–4; and U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Page 

Board, Interim Final to the Speaker From the House of Representatives 

Page Board, committee print, 98th Cong., 1st sess., May 27, 1983 

(Washington: GPO, 1983), p. 1. 

1081 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Page Board, Final 

Report From the House of Representatives Page Board, committee 

print, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., Dec. 11, 1984 (Washington: GPO, 

1985), p. 5. 

1082 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Congressional Record, vol. 

141, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463.

1083 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 99th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), 

p. 71; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration, 

101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO, 1991), 

pp. 35, 49, 79, 108. 

1084 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 1999, report to accompany H.R. 1141, 106th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 106-64 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 21–22. 

See also: U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1999, Making 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 1999, and for Other Purposes, conference report to 

accompany H.R. 1141, 106th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 106-143 

(Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 37; 1999 Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-31, Title I, Chapter 6, 113 Stat. 92 

(May 21, 1999); and Stacey Zolt, “O’Neill Building Will Be Torn 

Down in 2001: House Pages Will Be Relocated to 501 First St.,” 

Roll Call, Nov. 29, 1999, pp. 1, 14.

1085 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Offi cial 

Conduct, Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct 

Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-733 (Washington: GPO, 2006).

1086 Dear Colleague letter from John Boehner, Speaker of the 

House, and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, “Important Message from Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi,” Aug. 8, 2011. For 

additional information on the history of the House page program, 

see U.S. House of Representatives Page Program, “Page Program 

History,” at http://pageprogram.house.gov/history.html.

1087 Th e terms “unoffi cial” or “informal” are used to describe 

these Member-created groups as a way to distinguish them from 

the offi cial caucuses recognized by House rules and funded by 

congressional appropriations—the Democratic Caucus and the 

Republican Conference.

1088 Edward T. Pound, “Tougher Fund Rules Sought for Caucuses 

Organized in House,” New York Times, Sept. 20, 1981, p. 1; and 

Steven V. Roberts, “House Curbs Its Own Special Interest Groups,” 

New York Times, Nov. 1, 1981, p. 39.

1089 Additional views of Rep. Al Swift. For the full text of the 

proposed 1977 reforms, see: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on 

House Administration, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations, Legislative Service Organizations, 97th Cong., 2nd

sess., June 24, 1982, Rept. (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 23–24.

1090 Bill Peterson, “Caucuses: New Life on the Hill as Funnels for 

Special Interests,” Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1981, p. A1.

1091 Bill Peterson, “Caucuses: New Life on the Hill as Funnels for 

Special Interests,” Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1981, p. A1.

1092 Leonard M. Apcar, “House Scrutinizes ‘Caucuses,’ Often 

Run Like Lobbies,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 1981, p. 33.

1093 For additional information on the work of the Commission 

on Administrative Review, see CRS Report, RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Eff orts, by Judy 

Schneider, Christopher M. Davis, and Betsy Palmer. 

1094 Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS).

1095 For the full text of the proposed 1977 reforms, see: U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations, Legislative Service 

Organizations, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., June 24, 1982, Rept. (Washington: GPO, 1982), pp. 184–185.

1096 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Ad 

Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations, Legislative Service Organizations, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Rept., June 24, 1982 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 3. 

1097 Quoted in: Leonard M. Apcar, “House Scrutinizes ‘Caucuses,’ Often Run Like Lobbies,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 

1981, p. 33.

1098 Th e full text of the regulations are published in: U.S. Congress, House, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration of the House of Representatives During the 97th Congress, 97th Cong. 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO 

1982), pp. 33-36.

1099 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993 (Rules and 

Regulations),” Congressional Record, vol. 138, June 24, 1992, p. 

16111.

1100 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundredth Congress, 100th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), 

p. 22.
336 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

1101 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundredth Congress, 100th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 100-1112 (Washington: GPO, 1988), p. 98.

1102 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993 (Rules and Regulations),” Congressional Record, vol. 138, June 24, 1992, p. 16111.

1103 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for FY1993, Conference 

Report, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1007, p. 14.

1104 Mary Jacoby, “What Happened to Th ose New Accounting 

Standards for LSOs? Republicans Ask Rose: Controversy Continues 

Over Finances of 28 House Legislative Service Organizations,” Roll 

Call, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 19.

1105 Mary Jacoby, “What Happened to Th ose New Accounting 

Standards for LSOs? Republicans Ask Rose: Controversy Continues 

Over Finances of 28 House Legislative Service Organizations,” Roll 

Call, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 19.

1106 Mary Jacoby, “Republicans Ask GAO Audit of All Legislative 

Service Organizations, Roll Call, Mar. 15, 1993, pp. 8, 28.

1107 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, LSO 

Handbook, As Adopted by the Committee on House Administration 

August 5, 1993.

1108 Paul M. Rodriguez, “Panel Seeks Reform of Service Groups 

Funded by Congress,” Washington Times, Aug. 6, 1993, p. A4.

1109 “Rules of the House [H. Res. 6],” Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995, 104th Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 4, 1975, pt. 1, p. 18.

1110 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundredth Fourth Congress, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1988), pp. 

36–37. See also, Offi cial Member Handbook, http://cha.house.gov/

member_orgs.aspx.

1111 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Activities 

During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept 104-885, (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 86.
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 337

 V III. C A PITOL HIL L SECU R IT Y: PROT EC T I NG 

CONGR ESS AGAINST EVOLVING THR EATS

Origins and Development

On May 14, 1800, the Congress of the United States met 

for the last time in Philadelphia. Th e second session of the 

Sixth Congress, scheduled to begin on the third Monday in 

November, would be held in the city of Washington. Eighteen months later, John Golding was hired as a night watchman for the Capitol grounds. Golding’s authorization was 

limited. He could only “temporarily detain” persons “suspected of damaging or threatening to damage the property of 

the United States.” A sustained detention required the assistance of the Marshall of the District of Columbia. By order 

of President James Monroe, the watchman at the Capitol in 

1823 was reinforced by a detachment of U.S. Marines. Th e 

Marines, like the watchman, had to rely upon District of 

Columbia law enforcement offi cers to detain persons accused 

of criminal activity on federal property. In 1824, the fi rst two 

bills to establish a Capitol police force were introduced in 

Congress, but Congress took no action on them. Th ree years 

later, President John Quincy Adams dismissed the Marines 

assigned to the Capitol and increased the number of Capitol 

watchmen to four. Legislation was passed in 1828 authorizing 

the presiding offi cer of each house of Congress to preserve 

peace and order to the Capitol grounds. Th is 1828 legislation 

is generally regarded as the foundation of the U.S. Capitol 

Police (USCP). By 1841, another member had been added to 

the Capitol police force, bringing the total to fi ve.1

Not until March 1851 were the Capitol Police fi rst mentioned as a specifi c expense of the House of Representatives. 

Th e fi rst line item for the police appeared in an appropriation 

act a year later. During the next two decades from 1852 to 

1872 the force grew from eight (offi cers and watchmen) to 40 

(one captain, two lieutenants, 28 privates, eight watchmen, 

and one special policeman for the Senate). In 1861, when Congress created the Metropolitan Police Force for the District of 

Columbia, DC laws and regulations regarding the preservation of peace and order continued to be extended to Capitol 

Square, the existence of the Capitol Police notwithstanding.2

Congress instituted an important administrative change 

in 1873 by vesting authority for Capitol Police appointments 

with the House Sergeant at Arms, Senate Sergeant at Arms, 

and the Architect of the Capitol. Th ese three offi cers would 

later become the Capitol Police Board, which continues to 

this day to be administratively responsible for the Capitol 

Police. A year later, the Capitol Police were given a new offi ce 

near the rotunda of the Capitol. Th e Revised Statutes published in 1875 reaffi rmed statutes that (1) specifi ed how the 

members of the Capitol Police were to be appointed; (2) fi xed 

the size and salaries of the force; (3) authorized the Captain of the Police to suspend a member of the force with the 

approval of the House Sergeant at Arms, Senate Sergeant at 

Arms, and Architect of the Capitol; (4) authorized the three 

above named offi cers to select and regulate the pattern of the 

Capitol Police uniform; (5) authorized the same three offi cers 

“to make such regulations as they may deem necessary for 

preserving the peace and securing the Capitol from defacement, and for the protection of the public property therein,” 

and to arrest and detain violators of such regulations; and (6) 

extended the authority of the Capitol Police to include the 

Botanic Gardens.3

Within a year, however, the number of men on the force 

was reduced from 39 to 32; and the salaries of those retained 

were decreased as a consequence of an economic depression. 

Over the next several years the number of Capitol Police offi -

cers remained in the low 30s, except for a brief period during 

the election controversy over the popular and electoral vote 

in the 1876 presidential election between Samuel J. Tilden of 

New York and Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio. At the time, 50 

additional men were appointed “to serve as a special police at 
338 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the Capitol during the canvassing [counting] of the votes for 

President and Vice President.” When the Capitol was enlarged 

in 1890 and 1891 additional police were added, bringing the 

force to 36. During the remainder of the 1890s the force grew 

fairly rapidly, reaching 67 by the turn of the century.4

Also, during the latter part of the 19th Century, Congress 

passed two important administrative statues relating to the 

Capitol Police. Th e fi rst sought to prevent disturbances in the 

Capitol and preserve as well as protect the grounds by spelling out the specifi c duties of the Capitol Police and directing 

them to handle national occasions and celebrations at the 

Capitol. Th e second specifi cally authorized the Capitol Police 

Board to expend money for the fi rst time.5

Th e fi rst mention in law of separate police forces for the 

House and Senate, in addition to main Capitol Police force, 

appeared in a March 4, 1909, appropriations act, which provided funds for the fi scal year ending on June 30, 1910. Th e 

act included 18 positions each under the House and Senate 

Sergeants at Arms respectively, and 73 positions for the main 

force. Th e additional chamber positions were for policing the 

new House (Cannon) Offi ce Building and new Senate (Russell) Offi ce Building. With this enactment the total number 

of Capitol Police numbered 109.6 Four years later, Congress 

reduced the size of the House force by seven, the Senate force 

by one, and main force by 35. Later in 1913, a defi ciency 

appropriations bill added 15 additional positions to the main 

force to bring the total for fi scal 1914 to 81. Th e force for fi scal 

1915 remained the same.7

Between 1915 and 1935, when Congress for the fi rst time 

authorized the Capitol Police Board to establish a standard of 

qualifi cations for appointment to the force, the strength of the 

USCP grew from 81 to 133. Although the 1935 “limitations” 

bill did not “remove policemen” from patronage appointment, Louis Ludlow of Indiana, a member of the House 

Committee on Appropriations, explained during fl oor debate 

that it allowed “Members of Congress to say to applicants for 

policemen’s jobs that it will be useless for them to apply unless 

they measure up to a certain standard of qualifi cations.” Th e 

qualifi cations stipulated that an individual should be at least 

21 and no older than 50, be at least 5 feet 7 inches in height, 

and weigh at least 145 pounds. A preference was to be given 

to those who had served in the military.8

Two years later, appropriators included language in the 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1938, stipulating that 

an offi cer or member of the Capitol Police (including those 

in House and Senate Offi ce Buildings) appointed after June 

30, 1935, who did not meet the requirements prescribed for 

appointees by the Capitol Police Board, would not be paid. 

Th is provision became standard in subsequent appropriation 

bills. Also in 1937, legislation was passed that extended the 

benefi ts of the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1930 to the 

Capitol Police force. A year later, the Capitol Police Board was 

authorized to detail police from the House and Senate Offi ce 

Buildings for duty on the Capitol Grounds. Th is provision 

was also included in later appropriation bills.9

In June 1940, nine months after the outbreak of World 

War II in Europe, Congress provided supplemental funds 

“to the Capitol Police Board to provide additional protection 

during the present emergency for the Capitol Buildings and 

Grounds, including the Senate and House Offi ce Buildings 

and the Capitol Power Plant.” Th e bill stipulated that these 

funds could “only be expended,” however, “for payment for 

salaries and other expenses of personnel detailed from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service of the 

Treasury Department, and the Metropolitan Police of the 

District of Columbia.” Similar language appeared in Legislative Branch appropriations bills passed in 1941-1946. Th e 

1943-1946 acts also included a provision for the fi rst time 

specifying that any persons detailed from the DC Metropolitan Police would retain their rank, pay, privileges, and 

benefi ts during the detail.10

Enactment of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, 

assured USCP offi cers, as well as other legislative branch 

employees, that they would be paid for overtime, night, and 

holiday work, and provided for within-grade increases as well 

as payments for accrued annual leave. Th e Federal Employees 

Pay Act of 1946 increased the compensation for members of 

the force and other federal employees. A second act passed in 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 339

1946 defi ned the area of the Capitol Grounds under USCP 

jurisdiction; and spelled out the rules and regulations governing the Capitol grounds, the power of the Capitol Police, and 

authority of the Capitol Police Board.11

Committee on House Administration Assumes 

Oversight Responsibility

A number of the forgoing pieces of legislation originated with 

or were reported by the Committee on Accounts, which had 

been created on December 27, 1803, and made a standing 

committee in 1805. Th e jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Accounts included among other things, all subjects “touching the expenditure of the contingent fund of the House, 

[and] the auditing and settling of all accounts which may 

be charged therein to the House.” Since the Capitol Police 

were historically paid out of the House contingent fund, 

the Capitol Police as well as other House employees, fell 

under the Committee’s jurisdiction. At the beginning of the 

80th Congress (1947–1948), when the Committee on House 

Administration was created as provided for in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, among the functions and 

jurisdictions it assumed were responsibility for “employment 

of persons by the House,” and “expenditures of the contingent fund of the House.”12 During the fi rst seven years of its 

existence, however, it neither considered nor was referred 

any legislation dealing with Capitol Police matters. Related 

legislation dealt primarily with appropriations issues and as 

a consequence was handled by the House Committee on 

Appropriations. 

Proposal to Professionalize the Capitol Police. From 

1801, when Congress acquired its first night watchman, 

through the 19th century and into the fi rst half of the 20th 

century, members of the Capitol Police were selected through 

individual patronage. In 1954, however, fi ve Representatives 

were wounded when three Puerto Rican nationalists using 

automatic weapons fi red shots from the visitors’ gallery down 

into the House chamber. Subsequently, Chairman Karl M. 

Le Compte introduced a bill to replace the patronage system 

with a merit-based system designed to create a more professional policy force. Th e bill proposed selecting police offi cers 

based on their fi tness to perform the duties of their position, 

without regard to their political affi liation. Th e Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Accounts held a hearing on the measure in 

June 1954 and favorably reported the measure on July 16.13

Th e House passed the measure on July 29; but the Senate took 

no action, and the bill died at the close of the 83rd Congress.

Le Compte’s bill called for uniform mental and physical 

standards, and established retirement age, work week, and 

uniform sick and annual leave policies. Other provisions 

called for a training program, and authorization for the Capitol Police to call upon all executive branch departments and 

agencies and the District of Columbia government to furnish 

police force services as requested by the Capitol Police Board. 

Also, all powers vested in the USCP were to be transferred to 

the Capitol Police Board.14

Establishment of a Merit System. Similar measures to establish the Capitol Police as a professional 

police force were introduced in 1963, 1965, and 1966–

one measure in each of those years.15 The first two were 

referred to the Committee but not reported. The third,

H. Res. 796 (89th Congress, 1965–1966), ultimately resulted 

in the fi rst step toward the establishment of a Capitol Police 

Force based on a merit system. Chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, Samuel N. Friedel of Maryland, the author 

of the resolution, served on the Committee on House Administration during his entire tenure as a member of the House 

(83rd–91st Congresses, 1953–1970), and as chairman of the 

full Committee for the 91st Congress. H. Res. 796, which was 

favorably reported by the Committee and approved by the 

House on June 29, 1966, authorized the establishment of 72 

new Capitol Police positions (69 privates and three sergeants), 

“for duty under the House of Representatives.” Previously, 

“all of the members of the Capitol Police force were political 

appointees” except for D.C. Metropolitan Police personnel 

detailed to the force.16

Th e previous March, prior to the introduction of H. 

Res. 796, Representative Paul Findley of Illinois had called 

for “sweeping changes in the Capitol Police system” following an attack on Representative James Cleveland of New 
340 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Hampshire on the evening of March 21, 1966, in his offi ce 

in the Longworth House Offi ce Building. In a House fl oor 

speech the next day, Findley declared, “no self-respecting 

village in America would put up with the so-called security 

system that is used in the House of Representatives.” Capitol 

Police offi cers, he told his House colleagues, are not required 

to have professional training, and many “are college students 

who have no interest whatever in a police career. Almost all 

of them get—and keep—their jobs under an unbelievable 

system of personal patronage. Under it, senior Congressmen 

are each assigned a police position and given the privilege of 

selecting the person to fi ll it.” As a consequence, “eff ective 

discipline” is impossible. “If superior police offi cers attempt 

to require standards or impose punishment for infractions, it 

is an easy matter for the offi cer involved to run to his patron 

for intercession. Although a number of the present offi cers 

are excellent—indeed superior—much of the force is indifferent, ineff ective, unqualifi ed, and of little security value.” 

In order to improve the capability of the force, Findley urged 

that (1) the Capitol Police personnel system be abolished and 

“all policemen [be] selected on the basis of professional competence and aptitude,” and (2) all present and new members 

of the force be required to complete successfully the six-week 

course at the Washington Metropolitan Police Academy.17

H. Res. 796 specifi ed that the new appointments were to 

be “made by the Capitol Police Board, subject to the approval 

of the Committee on House Administration, without regard 

to political affi liation and solely on the basis of fi tness to 

perform the duties of the position.” Compensation for these 

additional positions was to be paid out of the contingent fund 

of the House of Representatives. In October 1966, additional 

funds were provided for the new policemen, and the provisions of H. Res. 796 became permanent law with their inclusion in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1967.18

During the 90th Congress (1967–1968), the Committee created a Special Subcommittee on Police with jurisdiction over legislation relating to the number of positions and 

the salaries of the Capitol and Library of Congress police 

forces, jurisdictions formally held by the Subcommittee on 

Accounts. Th e Subcommittee on Accounts, however, retained 

primary jurisdiction over the Capitol Police force.19

In May 1967, eleven months after authorizing 

72 new nonpartisan Capitol Police positions for the 

House, the chamber acted upon the favorable recommendation of the Committee and authorized an additional 77 new positions (73 privates and four sergeants). 

Representative Samuel N. Friedel, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, introduced H. Res. 464 in the 90th

Congress. Like its predecessor, H. Res. 464 required that the 

appointments be approved by the Capitol Police Board subject 

to the approval of the Committee. Compensation for the new 

positions was to be paid out of the House contingent fund. 

Representative Friedel saw H. Res. 464 as means for doing 

away with the “antiquated system of a 6-day workweek and 

putting policemen on a 5-day week.” It was also a way to gain 

the additional police needed “for the new parking facilities 

soon to be opened south of the Rayburn and Longworth 

Building.”20 Together, the resolutions passed in 1966 and 

1967 created 149 new, permanent, non-patronage Capitol 

Police positions.21

Th e eff ort to create a permanent nonpatronage Capitol 

Police force continued in 1968, when the Committee and the 

House approved an additional 62 permanent USCP positions 

for the House detail.22 Prior to reporting the resolution to further increase the House force, however, the Subcommittee on 

Police held a hearing on several diff erent personnel issues. Th e 

most delicate of these involved the approximately 29 percent 

of the force who were members of racial or ethnic minorities (24 held permanent and 30 patronage). Th e majority of 

those occupying patronage positions were students at Howard 

University who had been on the force for only three or four 

months. Recently, they had gone to the Chief of the Capitol 

Police and stated that they “wanted to elect a sergeant so they 

could get a fair shake.” Chief James M. Powell advised them 

that he had “tried to be fair,” and neither the Committee or 

the House Sergeant at Arms had “considered race, color or 

creed in any promotion.” Altogether, Powell indicated that 

there were 131 members of the force occupying patronage 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 341

positions, while 142 held career positions. Th e dissent, he 

explained, was only coming from the minorities in patronage positions, and he was trying several things to resolve 

their concern. Other issues introduced by Chief Powell dealt 

with the need for additional personnel to fi ll security and 

administrative positions, and to allow for those already on 

the force to be able to use annual and sick leave. Also, the 

Capitol Police pay raise that became eff ective on July 1, 1968, 

still left Capitol Police salaries $1,300 lower than those of the 

Metropolitan Police.23

Two years later, the House authorized seven more 

Capitol Police positions,24 and 214 additional positions in 

1971. Th e latter resolution increased the House Police to 

569. Among the new positions established were “several new 

categories of technical jobs, including those of dog handlers.” 

In each instance, the Committee was responsible for reporting the resolutions. Th e latter of the three resolutions was 

introduced after a bomb was set off in the Capitol on March 

1, 1971, arousing increased concern over the protection of the 

Capitol and other congressional offi ce buildings.25

In order to accommodate the additional security needs 

resulting from the acquisition of a former Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) building at Second and D Streets SW 

(fi rst called House Offi ce Building Annex No. 2 and then 

the Gerald R. Ford House Offi ce Building), the Committee 

approved a resolution in 1975 which authorized an additional 

73 Capitol Police positions under the House. Th ese new positions included 53 privates, seven technicians, three detectives, 

seven sergeants, two lieutenants, and one captain. Th e House 

passed the resolution, and it was subsequently incorporated 

into permanent law as part of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1976.26

Subsequent Committee action in 1977 led to the creation of two new Capitol Police positions—General Counsel 

to the Chief of the Capitol Police and a Deputy Chief of the 

Capitol Police. Previously, “the U.S. Attorney’s offi ce, the 

Department of Justice, the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, and in some instances the legal counsels 

of several committees had been helpful in advising the Chief 

of the Capitol Police on legal problems.” Since none of these 

agencies or individuals were in a “position to view the entire 

operation of the Capitol Police force,” the “committee felt 

that it would be more desirable to have a counsel to the Chief 

and to the Police Board, who would be directly responsible 

to them in matters pertaining to the operation of the Capitol 

Police force.” Until April 1977, a member of the Washington, 

D.C. Metropolitan Police force served as Deputy Chief of the 

Capitol Police. Th e Committee felt, following the death of 

the offi cer who held that position, it was an appropriate time 

to designate a USCP offi cer to take his place, and at the same 

time reduce the number of Metropolitan Police assigned to 

the Capitol Police.27

Th e Committee continued its eff ort to make the Capitol 

Police into a nonpartisan independent force in 1979 when it 

approved Chairman Frank Annunzio’s proposal to establish 

by law the position of Chief of Capitol Police, and to provide 

an equitable system for the assimilation of offi cers detailed to 

the force by the District of Columbia. Annunzio’s bill made 

the Police Chief a congressional employee appointed by the 

Capitol Police Board, who served at the pleasure of the Board. 

Heretofore the position of Chief had been held by a member 

of the Metropolitan Police Department. Th e bill allowed for 

the continuation of incumbent Chief, James M. Powell, a 

38-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department, who 

held the rank of Assistant Chief in the Department, and had 

served as Chief of the Capitol Police since 1965. Within two 

months after the bill was introduced it was signed into law 

by the President on December 20.28

Also in 1979, the Committee, as well as the full House, 

approved a resolution establishing 15 additional Capitol 

Police positions under the House, 10 of which would be 

used to provide security in the galleries and areas adjacent to 

the House chamber, in compliance with a recommendation 

of outside police experts including the Secret Service and the 

FBI. At the time, the security in the galleries was being provided by assignment of off -duty offi cers at overtime rates of 

pay. Four of the fi ve remaining new positions were created “to 

provide technical expertise in the radio maintenance, vehicle 
342 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

maintenance, and budget and fi nance control units of the 

police force.” Th e other position fi lled “a vacancy created by 

the retirement of a Metropolitan Police inspector . . . assigned 

to the Capitol Police Force,” who had commanded “all plainclothes offi cers, including those offi cers providing security to 

the House and Senate Chambers.”29

During the more than half century it has had jurisdiction over the Capitol Police, the Committee, in addition 

to being instrumental in establishing a nonpartisan merit 

system, has devoted considerable attention to a number of 

signifi cant related issues.

Provision for Overtime Pay (1968). In 1968, the Committee reported an amended concurrent resolution (H. Con 

Res. 785, 90th Congress) authorizing additional pay for the 

members of the force when the Capitol Police Board determined 

an emergency existed that required longer hours on duty. Th e 

resolution passed both the House and Senate in the aftermath 

of civil disturbances in the District of Columbia triggered by 

the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and subsequent 

demonstrations by anti-poverty demonstrations on Capitol Hill 

that necessitated additional working hours for many Capitol 

Police offi cers. H. Con Res. 785 was eff ective from June 28 

through August 31, 1968.30 Overtime pay was again approved 

in 1971, after anti-war protesters detonated a bomb “in a fi rst 

fl oor men’s room in the Senate side of the Capitol.”31

Continuing security needs on Capitol Hill prompted 

Committee approval of a resolution in 1974 designed to 

rectify a situation in which a number of members of the 

Capitol Police had accumulated as much as six months of 

compensatory time for overtime duty. Prior to the passage of 

the resolution, members of the force were “compensated for 

overtime duty with an equal amount of time off (compensatory time).” Th e Committee noted, that “100,125 overtime 

hours [had] been accumulated [by] the men assigned to stations on the House side during the year 1973, with an average 

of four hours per week.” Th e resolution proposed to correct 

the situation, as the Senate had already, by giving members 

of the House force the option of receiving compensation for 

overtime in lieu of time off .32

Emerging Security Challenges (1967–2000)

Beginning in the late 1960s changes in American politics 

and society posed new challenges for the Committee has it 

refl ected on how best to protect the U.S. Capitol and Members of Congress.

Demonstration Preparedness Review (1967). In 

December 1967, following an announcement that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was planning a camp-in demonstration 

the following spring on Lafayette Square in Washington, 

the Subcommittee on Police held a hearing on the capability 

of the Capitol Police to deal with possible associated sit-in 

demonstrations on Capitol Hill.33 Th e concerns expressed 

at that session were realized the following spring. On April 

22, 1968, 39 people were arrested “on charges of unlawful 

assembly after they tried to hold an all-night vigil on the 

Capitol grounds.” Th e protesters, which included “33 welfare 

mothers and six men, came from as far Los Angeles to voice 

their objection to recent welfare legislation and to honor 

the memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” who 

had been assassinated three weeks earlier, on April 4, while 

standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee. A little more than a month later, 300 demonstrators 

of the Poor People’s Campaign were denied admission to the 

House Visitors Gallery because they did not have the required 

gallery passes.34

Reaction to Capitol Bombing (1971). Early on the 

morning of March 1, 1971, “17 years to the day after Puerto 

Rican nationalists had shot up the U.S. House of Representatives, wounding fi ve members of the House,” an unidentifi ed 

caller warned the Capitol switchboard that a bomb would 

go off in the building in 30 minutes. “Th is is the real thing,” 

they warned. “Th is is in retaliation for the Laos decision.” 

“Th irty-three minutes later, at 1:32 a.m., an explosion ripped 

through the ground fl oor of . . . the Senate (or north) wing, 

just opposite the Old Supreme Court chamber.” In the aftermath of the bombing, the Committee held a hearing on 

proposals to improve security at the Capitol and surrounding 

buildings. Issues discussed at the session included providing 

“additional help for the Capitol Police force, possible instalCAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 343

lation of a closed circuit television system or other electronic 

device that would be required by the Police Board, provision 

for overtime compensation for the police who” worked during 

the March 1 emergency, and the “development of dog teams 

for the Capitol Police.”35

Installation of Security Systems (1972). Following 

the Capitol bombing that caused about $300,000 in damage to the Senate wing of the building, the Special Subcommittee on Police conducted a year-long study of the Capitol 

security system. In March 1972, Subcommittee Chairman 

Kenneth J. Gray of Illinois, in behalf of the full Committee, 

reported a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 550, 92nd

Congress) sponsored by Chairman Wayne Hays, and several 

other members of the panel, which authorized and directed 

the Architect of the Capitol “to procure and install security 

apparatus for the protection of the Capitol, including the 

procurement and installation of a video surveillance system, 

an intrusion system, and a parcel inspection system in the 

Capitol.” During House debate on the resolution, Gray told 

House colleagues that since the “March 1, 1971 bombing, we 

had 31 bomb threats in the month of April,” and “have had 

an average of 6 to 10 a month since that time. . . . I want to 

make it absolutely clear,” Gray continued, “that we are not 

installing a peeping device in the Capitol building. We are 

installing device to protect the security of the building. No 

sound monitoring will be allowed.” Th e concurrent resolution 

specifi ed that the work was to be done under the direction 

of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration, and the acquisition 

and installation of the systems should not exceed $3 million. 

Th e resolution was approved by the House and Senate shortly 

after being reported.36

Also in 1972, the Special Subcommittee on Police held 

a hearing on the establishment of stronger security measures 

for congressional offi ces following an incident in which a 

group of approximately 50 Washington, D.C. teenagers 

entered the offi ce of Representative Pierre S. du Pont of 

Delaware in the Longworth House Offi ce Building and 

“engaged boisterous and disorderly conduct, emptying the 

contents of [an] icebox on the fl oor, going through [the 

Member’s] desk drawers, and emptying the contents of a 

staff member’s pocketbook on the fl oor, and a ring and wallet were found to be missing.” Although two plainclothes 

policemen and one uniformed policemen apparently followed the group to Representative du Pont’s offi ce and could 

see what was happening, according to a letter written to the 

Subcommittee by Du Pont, “they made no eff ort to detain 

any of the individuals nor any eff ort to search the individuals for the missing items, nor did they give the members of 

[his] staff any opportunity to identify those responsible for 

the acts of vandalism.” Th e Chief of the Capitol Police, and 

other members of the force, in questioning by members of 

the Committee explained that they had lost many cases 

during the past few years in attempting to maintain order 

on Capitol Hill, and as a consequence individuals were only 

arrested following a solid complaint from a congressional 

offi ce. In this case no such complaint was lodged until after 

the unruly group had already left the building.37

Reorganization of Capitol Police Supervisory Positions (1973). A study by the Special Subcommittee on the 

Police in 1973 resulted in a resolution introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Kenneth J. Gray to reorganize the 

supervisory positions of the Capitol Police under the House. 

Th e purpose of the resolution, which was approved by the 

House on June 4, 1973, was “to establish for the U.S. Capitol 

Police under the House a ratio of supervisory personnel to 

subordinates which [was] intended to create a more eff ective 

supervisory capacity for [the] force in the interests of a more 

eff ective police organization and greater security on Capitol 

Hill.” Th e resolution provided for 32 promotions to the positions of inspector (2), captain (3), lieutenant (3), sergeant 

(20), and detective (4). Once the promotions were completed, 

a total of 47 private positions previously authorized for the 

House were to abolished.38

Security Enhancements Following Foreign Terrorist 

Attacks (1985–1986). Th e hijacking of the Italian cruise ship 

Achille Lauro in 1985 by four heavily armed terrorists representing the Palestine Liberation Front (PDF) in Egyptian 
344 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

waters, and 1986 Libyan terrorist attacks against the United 

States as well as Great Britain, where some U.S. planes were 

based, focused renewed attention on ensuring proper security 

on Capitol Hill. During the 99th Congress (1985–1986), the 

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police worked with House 

and Senate leadership and “other committees with jurisdiction in developing plans to improve security around the 

Capitol. Th ese eff orts lead to the appropriation of $13 million 

for security improvements.”39

Reforms of 1990. Following a March 1990 Subcommittee on Personnel and Police hearing, the Subcommittee 

Chaired by Representative Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio drafted 

resolutions designed to create a single retirement system to 

replace the separate House and Senate systems, compress 

then-current pay schedules so that offi cers could reach the 

highest pay levels in 14 year rather than in 26 years, and create 

a civilian ombudsman position to handle complaints. Adding 

support to the resolutions was Representative Pat Roberts of 

Kansas, the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member.40

Establishment of Position of Director of Employment 

Practices. First, the House on June 26, 1990, approved an 

Oakar resolution establishing a civilian position of Director 

of Employment Practices under the Capitol Police Board. Th e 

new position, according to Oakar, was created to assist individuals involved in the grievance process, and “enhance the 

integrity and credibility of the grievance procedures process 

for the U.S. Capitol Police.”41

Enhancement of Capitol Police Retirement System.

Second, on October 15, 1990, President George H.W. Bush 

signed the Capitol Police Retirement Act, which provided 

the members of the force with a retirement package comparable to those off ered by law enforcement agencies in the 

surrounding Washington metropolitan area. The reform 

measure developed by Representative Oakar’s Subcommittee 

was based on consultations with offi cers of the Capitol Police, 

Capitol Police Board, and the House Sergeant at Arms, and 

hearings that included testimony by the members of the Capitol Police Board, the Chief of the Capitol Police, and more 

than 400 Capitol Police offi cers. It also included a study of 

the retirement packages provided by 10 Washington metropolitan area law enforcement agencies.42

Creation of Civilian Support Positions (1991). Eleven 

months later, on August 1, 1991, the House passed H. Res. 

199 (102nd Congress) by unanimous consent after the Committee was discharged from further consideration. H. Res. 

199, which was introduced by Chairman Dakar, authorized 

the Committee to establish 144 civilian support positions 

under the Capitol Police civilian pay schedule, and, as each 

position was fi lled, to abolish a Capitol Police administrative 

positions fi lled by a private. Th e Congressional Budget Offi ce 

(CBO) estimated the resolution would “save the U.S. taxpayer 

an estimated $9.7 million over fi ve years.”43

Expansion of Jurisdiction and Establishment of a 

Unifi ed Payroll (1992). Early in October 1992, legislation 

became law (P.L. 102-397) that expanded the jurisdictional 

boundaries in which the Capitol Police have law enforcement 

authority, enhanced the arrest authority of the Capitol Police, 

established a joint or unifi ed payroll, and provided for a lump 

sum payment for retiring members of the force. Th is reform 

measure, like those approved in 1991 and 1992, were spearheaded by Representative Mary Rose Dakar. Th e Committee, 

in reporting the House version of the bill (H.R. 5269) in July, 

emphasized that a number of congressional buildings and 

areas were located beyond the original jurisdictional boundaries enacted in 1946. “While the police [had] jurisdiction 

within these buildings, it [was] the area surrounding these 

buildings and grounds that [presented] the problems the 

Capitol Police” currently faced. Th e proposed new boundaries, the Committee believed, “refl ect the realities facing the 

Capitol Police . . . in carrying out their mission.” Enhancing 

the USCG’s arrest authority to allow them to make arrests 

and enforce Federal and District of Columbia laws in the 

District under specifi ed circumstances was intended not to 

“expand the basic mission or law enforcement role of the 

Capitol Police,” but “to assist the Capitol Police in better 

performing the current mission.”44

Also, under the new act, “a single disbursing authority 

for all members of the Capitol Police force [was] established.” 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 345

Previously, “members of the Capitol Police Force [were] paid 

either by House or Senate funds.” In addition, the statute 

authorized lump-sum payments for USCG officers who 

retired on or before October 31, 1992, in accordance with 

the Capitol Police Retirement Act of October 15, 1990. 

Th is latter provision allowed for the retiring offi cers to be 

paid for their accumulated annual leave and compensatory 

time in lieu of taking leave for several months prior to their 

retirement.45

On July 7, 1992, after the House passed the Committee’s version of the bill, it was laid on the table, and the House 

struck all after the enacting clause of the Senate version of 

the bill (S. 1766) and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions 

of H.R. 5259, and passed S. 1766. Subsequently, the Senate 

accepted the House-passed version of S. 1766, except for 

a section changing the composition of the Capitol Police 

Board to include the Chair and Ranking Minority Party 

members of the Committee on House Administration and 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for the 

fi rst time. Th e House concurred, and the bill became law 

on October 6, 1992.46

As a consequence of this legislation (P.L. 102-397), supported by the Committee and passed by the 102nd Congress 

(1991–1992), the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police 

instituted the following reforms for the Capitol Police: 

• changed the retirement requirements to 20 years of service 

as prescribed in the Capitol Police Retirement Act;

• made all “technical positions competitive,” establishing “continuous and ongoing training seminars . . . to 

enhance interpersonal skills;” 

• began off ering “educational assistance seminars . . . prior 

to each exam for respective levels to promotion;”

• instituted “civilian support positions . . . on the House 

side;”

• compressed the Capitol Police Pay Schedule “from a 

26-longevity scale to a 17-year longevity scale;”

• expanded the “Capitol Police geographic jurisdiction;”

• enhanced the “Capitol Police arrest authority;”

• instituted “lump-sum payments to retiring members of 

the force;” and

• established and administered a “joint House-Senate” 

Capitol Police payroll.47

Impartial Promotion Testing (1993–1994). In the 

103rd Congress (1993–1994), the Subcommittee on Personnel and Police “worked with the Capitol Police to develop 

an impartial promotion testing process. The written and 

oral promotional examinations” were contracted out, and 

a “contract with a consultant was let to perform an equal 

opportunity employment validation of the exam process.”48

Designation of Officer Responsible for Citation 

Releases (1996). A provision of the House of Representatives 

Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act reported 

by the Committee on House Oversight on March 14, 1996, 

authorized the Chief of the Capitol Police, with the approval 

of the Capitol Police Board, to designate a member of the 

“Capitol Police to take bail or collateral, and to issue citations 

compelling appearance in court, in the same manner as may 

be done by an offi cial of the Metropolitan Police Department 

of the District of Columbia.” Th e provision “permits, but does 

not require, the judges of the Supreme Court of the District 

of Columbia to accept” the designation.49

Signifi cant Enhancement of Capitol Campus Security Authorized (1999). Subsequently, in the 104th–108th

Congresses (1997–2004), the Committee reviewed security 

operations in the House, including the House chamber, the 

galleries, the Capitol, House Offi ce Buildings, parking facilities, and Capitol grounds. Also, in the 106th–108th Congresses 

(1999–2004), the Committee monitored the Capitol Police 

Board plans on spending the $106.7 million authorized by 

the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999 for enhancement 

in Capitol campus security.50

Committee Response to 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

“Th e events of September 11, 2001 brought about a renewed 

focus and emphasis on” the Committee’s oversight responsibilities for “physical security, information security, and 

emergency preparedness for the House and Capitol complex, 

as well as oversight of the House offi cers as they perform their 

duties related to these issues.” Th e Committee implemented 
346 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

new security measures, oversaw the deployment and exploration of new technologies, and accelerating eff orts to ensure 

the continuity of legislative activities as well as constituent services. Th e Committee also worked closely with the Sergeant 

at Arms, Chief Administrative Offi cer, the Inspector General, 

and the Clerk of the House on issues related to emergency 

preparedness, business continuity, and security.51

Enhancements to Retention and Recruitment Program (2001). During the months “following the terrorist 

attacks of 2001, the U.S. Capitol Police experienced a severe 

rise in its attrition rate for offi cers, as trained personnel were 

recruited to potentially more lucrative employment in the 

new Transportation Security Administration and elsewhere 

in the expanding security sector.” In an eff ort to assure proper 

security for the members, staff , and visitors to the Capitol 

complex, the Committee proposed legislation (H.R. 5018, 

107th Congress) authorizing an increase in compensation and 

other incentives designed to enhance the ability of the capitol 

police to recruit and retain personnel. H.R. 5018 passed the 

House unanimously on June 26, 2002. Although the Senate did not act on H.R. 5018, most of the individual incentives contained in the bill were included in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003, which was signed into law 

on February 20, 2003.52

Hearings on Security Concerns (2002). Th ree security-related hearings were held by the Committee in 2002. 

Th ese sessions focused on: “E-Congress—Using Technology to Conduct Congressional Operations of Congress in 

Emergency Situations,” “Congressional Mail Delivery,” and 

“Security Updates Since September 11, 2001.”

E-Congress. The terrorist attacks of 2001, Chairman 

Robert W. Ney emphasized at a May 1, 2002, hearing on 

E-Congress, “forced our country and [Congress] to reexamine 

and reconsider long-held assumptions about how we are going 

to live, work, and conduct business on the Hill.” Th e terrorist 

attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks directed at Congress 

made “clear the necessity of developing plans for Congress 

to operate in the event of a catastrophic situation that either 

destroyed or made uninhabitable the buildings” used for conducting its business. Th e hearing focused on “how technology 

can help Congress operate in an emergency.”53

Congressional Mail Delivery. A week later, the Committee held its second 2002 security oversight hearing. Th is 

session centered on congressional mail delivery eight months 

after the devastating attacks of September 11, and seven 

months after “mail delivery to the House of Representatives 

ceased and [congressional] offi ce buildings were evacuated as 

a result of the discovery of the anthrax in the congressional 

mail system.” At the hearing, considerable attention was 

given to the steps that had been taken to ensure that essential 

functions of the chamber such as mail delivery. Prior to the 

anthrax attack, House Chief Administrative Offi cer, James 

M. Eagen, told the Committee that House mail operations 

were focused solely on speed and accuracy. While the mail 

had been x-rayed for bombs and protected from theft, these 

precautions did not signifi cantly add to the processing time. 

Following the anthrax incidents, concerns “about biological 

contaminants in the mail—including anthrax and other 

pathogens—resulted in signifi cant changes in the mail delivery process at the House.” Now House mail is sterilized and 

quarantined until it is delivered. It was also determined that 

“it was no longer appropriate to conduct mail operations in 

an offi ce building that houses several hundred House employees as well as the House Child Care Center.” To resolve this 

problem, the Committee “approved an occupancy agreement 

for an off site mail processing facility” in Capitol Heights, 

Maryland, and the Postal Service implemented new safety 

procedures “to ensure the safety of government offi cials and 

employees” processing mail.54

Security Updates Immediately Following 9/11. Th e 

Committee’s third security oversight hearing in 2002 focused 

on the progress and direction of Capitol security, emergency 

preparedness, and infrastructure upgrades in the House since 

the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. In his 

opening remarks, Chairman Bob Ney told those assembled 

on September 10 that the Committee had been actively 

and consistently engaged in the adoption of new security 

measures, installation of new security-related devices in the 

Capitol and House offi ce buildings, and accelerated eff orts 

to ensure the continuity of operations. In addition to workCAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 347

ing closely in planning and coordinating the security eff orts 

of the Sergeant at Arms, Chief Administrative Offi cer, and 

the Clerk of the House, Chairman Ney in the fall of 2001 

“convened a working group comprised of the House offi cers, 

the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police, representatives from House leadership, and the Appropriations Committee . . . to work together to identify objectives and focus 

solutions in response to the attacks.”55

At the same hearing, James M. Eagen, House Chief 

Administrative Offi cer, testifi ed that the his offi ce had carefully evaluated how improvements could be made in the 

House’s ability to conduct its business in the event of future 

circumstances similar to the September 11th and anthrax 

attacks. Eagen devoted considerable attention to explaining 

what had already been done to address the continuity of 

operations, communications, and technology concerns that 

had been raised as well as the “additional business continuity 

and disaster recovery improvements” that were anticipated.56

Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House, told the Committee 

that his offi ce was “very prepared to respond decisively and 

eff ectively should the operations of the House of Representatives be threatened again with serious disruption,” and the 

recently established House Offi ce of Emergency Planning, 

Preparedness and Operations had helped further this eff ort. 

Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman emphasized that 

signifi cant progress had been made in completing the Capitol 

Square perimeter security plan, fi nishing the Library of Congress perimeter security improvements, and incorporating 

additional screening in the construction of the Capitol Visitor 

Center. Other security enhancements included increasing the 

capabilities of an emergency public address system, replacing 

antiquated emergency generators, and assisting the Capitol 

Police in making a number of security upgrades. Wilson 

Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms, emphasized that 

since the terrorist and anthrax attacks, those responsible for 

House security had:

• amended traffi c regulations for the Capitol complex;

• rerouted trucks around the Capitol complex;

• installed additional vehicular barriers around Capitol 

Square and House offi ce buildings;

• closed streets around the House offi ce buildings; denied 

pedestrian access to [House] building offi ce garages;

• updated the Capitol and House offi ce building emergency preparedness plan;

• conducted both announced and unannounced evacuation drills; procured additional escape masks and trained 

6,000 House Members and staff on how to use them;

• developed new guidelines for Capitol tours; developed 

and implemented tactical training; designated an initial 

security plan for the Capitol Visitor Center; and

• hired more than 200 Capitol Police offi cers.57

Oversight and Approval of Security Eff orts (2003–

2004). Early in February 2003, the Committee approved the 

House perimeter security plan. Chairman Bob Ney emphasized that adoption of “this plan represents only one of a series 

of steps which began at this committee months ago towards 

greater physical security and ensuring the continuity of operations for the institutions.” Prior to Committee voting on the 

plan, Representative Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan expressed 

deep concern that the Botanic Gardens had not been included 

in the plan. Th ere are several events at the Botanic Gardens 

each year, Ehlers stressed, that a majority of House Members 

attend. Th e Botanic Garden “is a very vulnerable spot,” and 

“should be included within the House perimeter plan.” Th e 

Committee agreed to return to the Botanic Garden question 

later, but felt this issue should not stop the security plan from 

going forward.58

Also during the 108th Congress (2003–2004), the 

Committee was actively involved in the adoption of new 

security measures in the Capitol and House offi ce buildings. 

Th ese eff orts focused on both preparedness and security 

as the Committee oversaw the “deployment and exploration of new technologies,” “accelerated eff orts to ensure the 

continuity of legislative and constituent service operations,” 

and eff orts of the Capitol Police to secure the Capitol complex, while working to maintain open access to Members, 

congressional staff , citizens, and visitors. Th e Committee’s 

oversight concentrated “on the mitigation of threats from 

terrorist organizations.” It approved the installation of security technologies that enhanced the “law enforcement and 
348 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

threat deterrent capabilities of the Capitol Police,” “monitored eff orts to attract and retain highly qualifi ed police 

personnel,” and “worked to ensure that all Capitol Police 

offi cers are properly trained.” Additionally, the Committee 

monitored and evaluated “results analysis to determine ideal 

staffi ng levels to meet security needs, especially with the 

advent of the Capitol Visitors’ Center and responsibility for 

the Botanic Garden.”59

Review of House Emergency Preparedness (2005). In 

2005, the Committee held an oversight hearing on the security and preparedness eff orts of the House that emphasized 

considerable progress had been made in managing potential 

threats to Capitol Hill. Th e Capitol complex is diff erent now 

than it was prior to September 11, 2001, Capitol Police Chief 

Terrance W. Gainer told the panel. “We have worked very 

hard to provide necessary security enhancements without creating the appearance of building a fortress.” While enhanced 

physical barriers provide visible evidence of the commitment to keep the Capitol Complex secure, Gainer explained, 

numerous other, not so obvious, security measures have also 

been put in place. Th ere had been “technological improvements, enhancements and new implementations of state-of 

the-art security to deter, detect, and delay unlawful acts using 

a risk-analysis process to determine appropriate application.” 

Also, “superb working relationships” had been established 

within the congressional community and with federal, state, 

and local experts “to improve current procedures and investigate and incorporate emerging best emergency management 

practices.” Besides receiving testimony from the Capitol Chief 

of Police, testimony was also taken from the House Sergeant 

at Arms, House Chief Administrative Offi cer, and a panel 

of experts on “emergency preparedness, threat assessment, 

evacuation procedures, and movement of large crowds.”60

Safety, Emergency Evacuations Drills, and Security 

(2007–2008). During the 110th Congress (2007–2008), the 

Committee devoted signifi cant attention to working with 

the House Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol 

(through his Superintendent of the House Offi ce Buildings), 

and the Capitol Police to improve safety in House office 

buildings, especially with respect to emergency evacuations. 

Th ese eff orts included: 1) convening meetings of the legislative agencies involved in emergency evacuations and determined what changes needed to be made in the physical plant 

as well as operations of the House, and 2) supporting plans 

to add a new emergency exit to the Longworth House Offi ce 

Building and increase the safety of stairwells in both the 

Cannon and Longworth House Offi ce Buildings without 

detracting from the historic architecture of the buildings.61

“Upon recommendation from the Committee, the 

Speaker of the House designated the Sergeant at Arms 

(HSAA) as the lead entity for coordinating evacuation procedures in House buildings.” Also, the Committee approved 

the House Sergeant at Arms Senior Management Expansion/Reorganization Plan so the HSAA could better manage 

emergency evacuation planning and operations. Under the 

Committee’s oversight, the HSAA “took on a lead role in a 

cross-jurisdictional approach to addressing the House’s safety 

concerns. Th is emphasis led to installation of improved signage, 

enhanced training for employees, and identifi cation of a need 

for improved communications with evacuated employees.” In 

support of this eff ort, “Committee staff oversaw evacuation 

drills and tabletop exercises conducted by the HSAA, and 

the Committee approved plans for conducting more frequent 

evacuation drills, both announced and unannounced.”62

Also during the 110th Congress, the Committee closely 

observed the Chief Administrative Offi cer’s “contributions 

to the security of House operations, including security of 

mail deliveries and continuity of operations in the event of 

an emergency. In addition to receiving regular reports on 

these operations, Committee staff visited CAO facilities and 

overseen practical exercises intended to ensure that House 

operations can be maintained in any eventuality.”63

Subcommittee on Capitol Security Created (2007–

2008). At the outset of the 110th Congress, the Committee 

created a Subcommittee on Capitol Security that for the next 

two years devoted a great deal of its time to the U.S. Capitol 

Police. Th e Subcommittee on Capitol Security was given jurisdiction over “matters pertaining to operations and security 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 349

of the Congress, and of the Capitol complex including the 

House wing of the Capitol, the House Offi ce Buildings, the 

Library of Congress, and other policies and facilities supporting congressional operations; the U.S. Capitol Police.”64 Th e 

Committee and the Subcommittee’s activities took the form 

of regular, detailed oversight meetings, briefi ngs, and hearings. 

Th e Committee also developed and reported legislation related 

to the Capitol Police.65

Because of the sensitive nature of Capitol security issues 

being discussed, the Committee and Subcommittee held several private briefi ngs with U.S. Capitol Police leadership, and 

Committee staff met almost weekly with the police for briefings on operational matters. Management and administrative 

issues, long-term strategic planning, and agency progress in 

implementing Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO) 

management recommendations were addressed in regular 

briefi ngs and ad-hoc meetings. In addition, Committee staff 

toured the Capitol Police training facilities and observed 

practice police exercises on the Capitol campus.66

Hearing on the Administration and Management 

of U.S. Capitol Police (2008). On May 1, 2008, the Subcommittee on Capitol Security met to hear testimony on 

the administration and management of the U.S. Capitol 

Police. Th e hearing primarily focused on how well the force 

had responded to administrative and management recommendations of the Government Accountability Offi ce. GAO 

testifi ed that the Capitol Police had made signifi cant progress 

in response to their recommendations. Subsequently, the 

Subcommittee obtained a further review from GAO of the 

ELS [Enlightened Leadership Solutions] labor management 

study obtained by the Capitol Police.67

Hearing on U.S. Capitol Police Radio Upgrades 

(2008). In mid-June 2008, the Subcommittee on Capitol 

Security held a hearing to consider upgrades for the U.S. 

Capitol Police’s radio communications that would allow 

the department to work more effectively with other law 

enforcement agencies. Witnesses testifying included Phillip 

D. Morse, Sr., Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police; James Crane, 

Commander, Special Operations Division, Metropolitan 

Police Department appeared on behalf of Chief Cathy L. 

Lanier, Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department; 

Dr. David G. Boyd, Command, Control and Interoperability 

Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; and Steve Souder, Director, Department of Public 

Safety Communications, Fairfax County, VA.68

U.S. Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2008. Between 2001 and 2008, Congress 

enacted numerous individual provisions affecting the 

administration of the U.S. Capitol Police, many of which 

were substantive requirements added to appropriations 

acts. Because many of these “provisions confl icted with 

other laws, were duplicative or caused other administrative 

problems for the agency,” on May 6, 2008, Committee 

Chairman Robert A. Brady , with the co-sponsorship of the 

Ranking Minority Member Vernon J. Ehlers and Chairman 

of the Capitol Security Subcommittee Michael Capuano 

introduced the United States Capitol Police Administrative 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (H.R. 5972). Th e intent 

of the proposal was to make technical changes in existing 

laws and thereby streamline U.S. Capitol Police administration. Th e bill was favorably reported by the Committee on 

June 4 and passed the House with an amendment later the 

same day. Th e Senate took no action on the measure in the 

110th Congress.69

By law, the Committee (along with its Senate counterpart, the Committee on Rules and Administration), is 

required to approve certain personnel actions taken by the 

Chief of the Capitol Police. Th e Committee discharged this 

responsibility in a timely manner throughout the 110th Congress, and approved a U.S. Capitol Police reorganization plan 

creating a “Mission Assurance Bureau.”70 Th e Committee:

• reviewed an analysis of the department’s uniformed offi -

cer post/duty assignments to determine and authorize 

force levels to meet the agency’s security requirements, 

especially with the advent of the Capitol Visitors Center 

and responsibility for U.S. Botanic Garden;

• monitored the department’s human-resources, including 

civilian component, attrition rates, recruitment eff orts and 

incentive programs for offi cers and civilian employees;
350 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

• reviewed the Capitol Police new recruit and in-service 

training programs;

• reviewed the department reorganizations, rational for 

new positions, appointments, terminations, and certain 

promotions;

• authorized and oversaw the installation and maintenance of new security systems and devices proposed by 

the U.S. Capitol Police Board;

• reviewed and authorized regulations prescribed by the 

U.S. Capitol Police Board “for use of law enforcement 

authority by the Capitol Police;”

• examined the role of the Capitol Police in assuring accessibility to the House wing of the Capitol, House Offi ce 

Buildings, and other facilities consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and

• reviewed the “use of technology generally in the protection of the House of Representatives.”71

Capitol Visitor Center Experience (2007–2008). On 

October 17, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) and the visitor experience. Th e hearing covered security at the CVC as well as the future of tours 

at the center. Witnesses included: Phillip D. Morse, Sr., Chief 

of the U.S. Capitol Police; Terrie S. Rouse, CEO for Visitor 

Services, Capitol Visitor Center; and Th omas L. Stevens, 

Director of Visitor Services, U.S. Capitol Guide Service.72

Subsequently, on January 29, 2008, Committee Chairman Robert A. Brady introduced H.R. 5159, the Capitol Visitor 

Center Act of 2008, which the Committee had worked closely 

with the Sergeant at Arms in developing. H.R. 5159 provided 

for governance and operation of the Capitol Visitor Center 

(CVC), which opened to the public in the following December. 

Th e Committee favorably reported the bill on March 3, 2008, 

and the House passed the bill by voice vote two days later. On 

September 27, the Senate approved an amended version of the 

bill. Th e House agreed to the Senate amendments on October 

2, and the President signed H.R. 5159 a week later.73

During the 110th Congress, the Committee also devoted 

considerable attention to overseeing and providing policy 

direction for the House Sergeant at Arms in his role as the 

House’s representative on the Capitol Police Board. Th e Committee consulted regularly with the HSAA regarding policies 

adopted by the Board.74

Hearing on Securing Personal Identifi able Information Within the U.S. Capitol Police (2009). On October 

10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Capitol Security held an 

oversight hearing on the status eff orts by the United States 

Capitol Police to “address privacy concerns and put in place 

a system for the protection of personally identifi able information (PII)75 within the department. At the hearing, the 

Subcommittee received testimony from Phillip D. Morse, 

Sr., Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, and Carl W. Hoecker, 

Inspector General of the U.S. Capitol Police.

Chief Morse detailed for the Subcommittee the department’s privacy protection policies and the work it had being 

doing to address the recommendations of the Inspector General. Mr. Hoecker’s testimony focused on an “Audit of UCSP 

Privacy Program” report his offi ce had completed in March 

2009 and subsequent communications with the Capitol 

Police about improving its policies and procedures. 

“Technological advances and the pervasiveness of data 

collection technologies,” Chief Morse told the Subcommittee, 

“have further increased the need to be vigilant in the eff ort to 

safeguard all PII contained in an agency’s various data and 

records management systems.” Although the department did 

maintain some U.S. Capitol Police employment PII, its “most 

sensitive information is primarily maintained by cross-serving 

partner agencies.” He emphasized that only “very limited personal identifi able information” was maintained on Members 

of Congress. Since receiving the Inspector General’s report, 

Morse said, the department had taken steps to address a 

number of issues the report raised, and was actively developing plans to address the remaining issues.76

Mr. Hoecker noted “no instances of either intentional 

or inadvertent releases of PII” by the U.S. Capitol Police, but 

he did stress the need for the department to “improve the 

internal effi ciency and eff ectiveness of its PII program.” In 

conclusion he also told the Subcommittee the department 

had taken steps toward improving PII programs, but work 

still needed to be done.77
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 351

Hearing on U.S. Capitol Police Budget Concerns 

(2010). On July 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Capitol 

Security held a hearing on concerns about the U.S. Capitol 

Police budget after the Capitol Police Board revealed to the 

House Administration that it had substantially miscalculated 

basic elements of its recent budget submission, resulting in 

a several million dollar shortfall. Following that disclosure, 

the Committee on House Administration, along with the 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, directed 

the U.S. Capitol Police Inspector General to review the budget development, formulation and execution process for the 

Capitol Police. Th e Inspector General’s report was completed 

in June 2010.

Upon learning of the department’s FY2010 salary shortfall, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Philip D. Morse, Sr. explained, 

he “took immediate action to assess the issue, coordinate with 

the Capitol Police Board, notifi ed our oversight committees, 

stabilized our budget execution, and developed a plan to 

address the problem.” He also “asked the U.S. Capitol Police 

Inspector General to conduct an audit of our fi scal year 2010 

and 2011 budget formulation processes and provide me with 

a report as soon as possible so that I can take any necessary 

or immediate action.” Th e IG’s report contained “several recommendations to assist the Department in strengthening its 

fi nancial management practices, to include our future budget 

formation processes.” To ensure that situation does not occur 

again, Morse said, “[W]e are actively realigning our processes 

to adopt those suggestions from the report. We are developing standard operating procedures to formalize our budget 

formulation processes and we are working in a collaborative 

manner with the Capitol Police Board to implement their 

guidance and recommendations.”78

Inspector General Carl W. Hoecker, who also testifi ed 

at the hearing, “found that the [Capitol Police] Department 

did not have adequate controls over the budget formulation process to ensure that adequate data was collected and 

developed. Th e Department’s policies and procedures did 

not accurately document or defi ne its budget formulation 

processes. And the budget execution and monitoring standard operating procedures are incomplete and outdated.” 

He concluded that the “overarching root cause is the Department’s administrative management has allowed inadequate 

fi nancial weakness to persist, neglected to hold individuals 

accountable for implementation of GAO and OIG recommendations, and ineff ectively managed its workforce.” To 

address these concerns, OIG had made eight recommendations to “strengthen controls over the processes involved in 

budget formulation.”79 In 2001, the USCP implemented the 

Force Development Standard Operating Procedure, a threat 

based budget projection process, to correct the major issues 

with budget projection. 

During follow-up questioning, Representative Daniel 

E. Lungren, a member of the Subcommittee, asked Inspector General Hoecker to whom he was referring when he said 

“that the Department’s administrative management has 

allowed inadequate fi nancial weakness to persist.” Hoecker 

responded: “Th at would be the CAO, everything under the 

CAO’s offi ce.” A few weeks later, the Chief Administrative 

Offi cer announced her retirement.80

Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections 

Act (P.L. 111-145). Over the years, Congress has enacted 

numerous provisions governing the administration of the U.S. 

Capitol Police (USCP). Many of these provisions, including 

some that addressed single purposes without examining their 

full ramifi cations for the Capitol Police, contain drafting 

errors, confl ict with previous laws, or have other technical 

fl aws. Such fl aws can confuse the interpretation of the law 

and deplete the limited resources of the agency by creating 

uncertainty for management, the officers and employees 

about precisely what Congress intended. 

To address a number of those fl aws, Committee Chairman Robert Brady introduced H.R. 1299, the “Capitol 

Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009,” 

on March 4, 2009. Th e bill was cosponsored by the Ranking Minority Member, Representative Daniel Lungren, 

and the Chairman of the Capitol Security Subcommittee, 

Representative Michael Capuano. H.R. 1299 called for 

repeal of obsolete or duplicate provisions of existing law, and 
352 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

correction of drafting errors and clarifi cation of the meaning 

of other provisions. In developing the bill, the three Committee members had worked with the Chief of U.S. Capitol 

Police, Phillip D. Morse, Sr.; his General Counsel, Gretchen 

DeMar; and others. As introduced, the bill made no change 

to the terms and conditions of employment, access to public 

services, or accommodations in the Legislative Branch.81

After considering the bill, the Committee ordered H.R. 

1299 reported to the House on March 30, 2009, with a favorable recommendation and without amendment. H.R. 1299 

passed the House on March 31, 2009 by a vote of 416 to 1 

and was sent to the Senate for consideration. On October 29, 

2009, the Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Th e Senate substitute added language to the bill stipulating that the 

position of General Counsel to the Chief of Police and the 

United States Capitol Police created by H.R. 1299 would 

report to and serve at the pleasure of the Chief of Police. Th e 

Senate amendment also added a new section to the bill which 

granted additional law enforcement authority to certain 

employees of the House Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper 

of the Senate, including the ability to carry fi rearms. On 

November 6, 2009, the House amended the bill once again 

to attach unrelated provisions which would create a nonprofi t 

corporation to promote the United States abroad as a travel 

destination. Th e Senate eventually agreed to this fi nal House 

version on February 25, 2010. H.R. 1299 was approved by the 

President and became Public Law 111-145 on March 4, 2010, 

exactly a year to the day after it was introduced.82

Tackling another aspect of security, the Subcommittee on Capitol Security requested and reviewed a report 

from the House Chief Administrative Offi cer on potential 

improvements to the handling of mail. In consultation with 

the U.S. Capitol Police, the Committee directed the CAO to 

implement some modest changes that improved productivity without compromising security. In addition to receiving 

regular reports on these operations, Committee staff visited 

CAO facilities and oversaw practical exercises intended to 

ensure that House operations could be maintained in any 

eventuality.83

Security Enhancements Following the Shooting of 

Representative Giff ord. “At 10:10 am on Saturday, January 8, 2011, a lone gunman killed six people and severely 

wounded” Representative Gabrielle Giff ord during a public 

meeting with constituents in a supermarket parking lot in 

Casas Adobes, near Tucson, Arizona. “Th is horrifi c event 

drew an immediate reaction by the security apparatus for 

the Congress. In concert with the bipartisan leadership and 

the federal law enforcement community, the Committee 

commenced initiatives to improve security for Members in 

their district offices. The Committee directed the House 

Sergeant at Arms to look at security enhancements for district offi ces, starting with vulnerability and physical security 

assessments conducted by the private security company ADT 

with the option to have security systems installed.” In 2011, 

254 Member offi ces requested physical security surveys and 

all were completed.84

Additionally, the Sergeant-at-Arms designed a new 

program, the Law Enforcement Coordinator Program, for 

Member District offi ces that initiated and improved their 

communications with local law enforcement agencies. Under 

the program, Law Enforcement Coordinators are responsible 

for working with local law enforcement agencies to establish 

security arrangements for their Member’s events, identifying 

the various security elements that may be needed for the 

event, and identifying the various other site considerations to 

be addressed when requesting security for upcoming events. 

By the end of 2011, 99 percent of the Member district offi ces 

had established a law enforcement coordinator to establish 

security arrangements for Member events.85

During 2011, the Committee also directed the House 

Sergeant-at-Arms to plan and execute multiple emergency 

response drills for all of the House Office Buildings and 

several alternate chamber exercises. Th ese exercises validated 

current emergency response planning and execution capabilities and the ability of the Sergeant-at-Arms and U.S. Capitol 

Police to manage a crisis. Additionally, the Offi ce of Emergency Management in the Offi ce of the House SergeantCAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 353

at-Arms examined new evacuation modeling software that 

would be able to streamline evacuation drills and refi ne emergency response course of action development for the U.S. 

Capitol Complex.86

Meanwhile, the U.S. Capitol Police continued to work 

on systems to reduce the time between the beginning of 

an emergency and the notifi cation of Members, staff and 

visitors of important information. Completion of the Radio 

Modernization Project undertaken by the Capitol Police will 

substantially upgrade their communications capabilities. Th e 

Radio Modernization Project is tentatively scheduled to be 

completed in 2013.87

In May, 2011, the Chairman of the Committee on 

House Administration, Daniel E. Lungren directed the committee to assess the U.S. Capitol Police in order to ensure the 

USCP have the right people, equipment and training following the Giff ord shooting, and to ensure that Members, Staff 

and visitors to the Capitol were provided an appropriate level 

of security and protection. 

Committee’s Role in Library of Congress Security

More than a half century earlier, in 1950, the Subcommittee 

on Library, Disposition of Executive Papers, Enrolled Bills, 

and Memorials favorably reported legislation subsequently 

enacted into law that provided additional security for the 

buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress. Th e measure made it unlawful to sell, advertise, or solicit in Library of 

Congress buildings or on its grounds; to climb upon, remove, 

or injure any statue, seat, wall fountain, or other erected item 

or architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, plant, or turf in 

the Library buildings or on its grounds; to discharge fi rearms, 

fi reworks, or explosives; to parade, stand or move in assemblages; or to display fl ags, banners, or devices designated or 

adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, 

or movement. Under the act, the Librarian of Congress was 

authorized to designate employees of the Library as special 

policemen to enforce these provisions, and to make whatever 

other regulations were deemed necessary for adequate protection of Library buildings and grounds.88

Subsequently, in 1968, the Committee reported legislation providing salary increases for members of the Library 

of Congress Police, noting the relatively low pay scale of the 

force and its diffi culties in recruiting and retaining personnel. 

A comparison of the salaries of the Library of Congress Police 

with those of the Capitol Police and Supreme Court Police, 

the Committee found, demonstrated the need for adjustment 

was acute. Th e bill passed the House on October 7, 1968, and 

became law two weeks later.

A critical component of the new law removed the Library 

Police from coverage under the Classifi cation Act of 1949, 

which had made them “subject to the general schedule job 

evaluation and pay standards supervised” by the U.S. Civil 

Service Commission. Th is placed them “for pay purposes in 

the same category as some 3,300 other guards in the General Services Administration, Department of Defense, and 

other governmental agencies,” thereby imposing limits on 

pay increases for Library Police. The Civil Service Commission had been opposed to exceptions for the Library of 

Congress Police within the framework of the Government 

classifi cation structure. Th e Commission’s “understandable” 

opposition, however, had made it diffi cult for the Library 

of Congress Police force to recruit and retain an adequate 

number of personnel.89

Even with the 1968 salary adjustment for the Library of 

Congress, the Committee found in 1973 that in the intervening fi ve years “police offi cers in other forces in the metropolitan area [had] received paying increases leaving the library 

in a poor competitive position to recruit and retain fi rst-rate 

personnel.” In order to address this problem, the Committee 

reported a bill calling for another pay increase for the Library 

of Congress Police, and it was approved by both houses of 

Congress and became law on December 5, 1973.90

In 1987, legislation reported by the Committee and later 

signed into law language to change the “title of employees 

designated by the Librarian of Congress for police duty and 

to make the rank structure and pay for such employees the 
354 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

same as the rank structure and pay for the Capitol Police.” 

Th e bill also contained a four-year phase-in period that called 

for annual pay increases that would allow the force to reach 

equivalency with the Capitol Police force by September 30, 

1990. Representative Mary Rose Oakar, Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials and the bill’s 

author, told House colleagues during fl oor debate that the 

Library of Congress Police had “not received a salary adjustment in 14 years—besides mandated COLA’s.” Since 1973, 

however, the Library of Congress Police force had “substantially increased in size, professional skills and responsibilities,” 

and a “1981 Offi ce of Personnel Management study of Federal 

police and guard occupations found the job requirements for 

Supreme Court Police, Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police essentially similar.” She went on to explain that 

the Supreme Court Police had “been traditionally paid at the 

rate of paid to Capitol Police.”91

Th e jurisdictional authority of the Library of Congress 

Police was further expanded through legislation introduced 

by Chairman Bill Th omas in 1997 as a consequence of the 

acquisition of approximately 41 acres located near Culpeper, 

Virginia, for the Library of Congress Audiovisual Conservation Center. Th e legislation “amended the act entitled ‘An 

Act relating the policing of the buildings of the library of 

Congress’ approved August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C. 167(j)),” to 

include the newly acquired property in Culpeper.92

Merger of the U.S. Capitol Police and Library of 

Congress Police (2007–2010). “Upon organizing in 2007, 

the Committee made legislation to complete the merger of 

the Library of Congress Police with the USCG [U.S. Capitol 

Police] a top priority.” Although Congress had provided for 

the merge in 2003 “subject to further legislation, for a “variety 

of reasons, the eff ort had languished during the preceding 

four years.” During the 110th Congress, in response “to strong 

encouragement by the Committee, the two agencies developed an implementation plan and a draft of legislation necessary to accomplish it.”93 On June 27, 2007, the Committee 

held a hearing on the implementation of the merger of the two 

forces. Witnesses testifying at the hearing who endorsed the 

draft bill included: Phillip D. Morse, Sr., Chief of Police, U.S. 

Capitol Police; Jo Ann C. Jenkins, Chief Operating Offi cer, 

Library of Congress; Wilson Livingood, House Sergeant at 

Arms, and Michael Hutchins, Chairman of the Library of 

Congress Fraternal Order of Police. Th e Committee held a 

mark-up of H.R. 3690 on November 7, 2007, and favorably 

reported an amended bill on December 4, 2007. Th e bill 

passed the House the following day. An amended version of 

H.R. 3690 was approved by the Senate on December 17, and 

the house concurred in the Senate amendment on December 18. Th e U.S. Capitol Police-Library of Congress Police 

Merger Implementation Act of 2007 was signed on January 

7, 2008 and the merger process was begun.94

Endnotes

1 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, A Statutory 

History of the United States Capitol Police Force, committee print, 99th

Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 1–4.

2 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, A Statutory 

History of the United States Capitol Police Force, committee print, 99th

Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 5–13; and 9 Stat. 

599 (Mar. 3, 1851). Specifi c information regarding the personnel 

of the Capitol Police fi rst appeared in the Congressional Directory 

in the 39th Congress (March 1865–March 1867) and continued in 

the Directories for the next 28 years (until 1893). Th e list included 

offi cers, privates, and watchmen together with their home addresses. 

Since 1894 (53rd Cong., 2nd sess), Congressional Directories have only 

listed selected offi cers of the Capitol Police force.

3 17 Stat. 488 (Mar. 3, 1873); and A Statutory History of the United 

States Capitol Police Force, pp. 13–15.

4 19 Stat. 143-144 (Aug. 15, 1876); “Additional Temporary Police,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 5, Jan. 30, 1877, p. 1109, and Jan. 31, 

1877, p. 1138; 26 Stat. 91 (Mar. 3, 1891); and 31 Stat. 90 (Apr. 

17, 1900). 

5 22 Stat. 126-127 (July 1, 1882); and 22 Stat. 337 (Aug. 7, 1882).

6 35 Stat. 838, 850, 853 (Mar. 3, 1909).

7 37 Stat. 741-743, 745 (Mar. 4, 1913); 38 Stat. 226 (Oct. 22, 1913); 

and 38 Stat. 457-458, 460 (July 16, 1914).

8 49 Stat. 462, 465, 468 (July 16, 1935); and Rep. Louis Ludlow, 

“Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1936,” Congressional Record,

remarks in the House, vol. 79, May 16, 1935, pp. 7396–7397. 

For details on the growth of the force between 1915 and 1935 

see: A Statutory History of the United States Capitol Police Force, 

pp. 35–54.

9 50 Stat. 178 (May 18, 1937); 50 Stat. 513-514 (July 13, 1937); 

and 52 Stat. 389-390 (May 17, 1938).
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 355

10 54 Stat. 629-630 (June 27, 1940); P.L. 145, 55 Stat. 456 (July 

1, 1941); P.L. 600, 56 Stat. 340-341 (June 8, 1942); P.L. 96, 57 

Stat. 230-231 (June 28, 1943); P.L. 354, 58 Stat. 345-346 (June 

26, 1944); P.L. 85, 59 Stat. 250 (June 13, 1945); and P.L. 479, 60 

Stat. 399, 408 (July 1, 1946).

11 P.L. 106, 59 Stat. 301-302 (June 30, 1945); P.L. 389, 60 Stat. 

217 (May 23, 1946); H. Res. 691 (79th Cong.); “Adjusting Salaries 

of Certain Employees of the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 92 , July 2, 1946, pp. 8151-8153; and P.L. 570, 

60 Stat. 718, 719, 720, 721 (July 31, 1946). Th e salary adjustment 

was later enacted into permanent law. P.L. 80-197, 61 Stat. 377 

(July 17, 1947). 

12 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 825-826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

13 Clayton Knowles, “Five Congressmen Shot in House By 3 

Puerto Rican Nationalists; Bullets Spray From Gallery,” New York 

Times, Mar. 2, 1954, pp. 1, 16; H.R. 9413 (83rd Cong.); “House 

Gets Bill to Reorganize Police Force on Hill,” Washington Post 

and Times Herald, June 3, 1954, p. 22; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Capitol Police Reorganization Act of 

1954, hearings on H.R. 9413, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 22, 1954 

(Washington: GPO, 1954); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Capitol Police Reorganization Act of 1954, 

report to accompany H.R. 9413, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2267 

(Washington: GPO, 1954).

14 H.R. 9413 (83rd Cong.).

15 H.R. 9324 (88th Cong.); H.R. 10719 (89th Cong.); and H.Res. 

796 (89th Cong.). Th e Committee’s Subcommittee on Accounts did 

hold a hearing on H.R. 10719 in September 1965, but took no further action. U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Accounts, unpublished hearings, 89th Cong., 1st

sess., Sept. 7, 1965 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CISNo: 89 HHad-T.47). 

16 Guide to Congress, 6th ed., 2 vols. (Washington: CQ Press, 2008), 

vol. 2, p. 865; “Authorizing the Employment of Additional Capitol 

Police for Duty Under the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 112, June 29, 1966, p. 14624; and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Employment 

of Additional Capitol Police for Duty Under House of Representatives, 

report to accompany H. Res. 796, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1675 (Washington: GPO, 1966). 

17 Rep. Paul Findley, “Security System for the House of Representatives,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 112, 

Mar. 22, 1966, p. 6546; and “Attack on Hill Stirs Hill, Professional 

Policemen Asked to Guard Capitol,” Washington Post, Times Herald, 

Mar. 23, 1966, pp. A1, A4. See also: Rep. Paul Findley, “Capitol 

Police,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 112, Apr. 

18, 1966, p. 8199.

18 P.L. 89-697, 80 Stat. 1063 (Oct. 27, 1966); U.S. Congress, 

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittees of the House 

Committee on Appropriations, Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 

1967, hearings, part 2, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 10, 1966 (Washington: GPO, 1966), pp. 104–106; and U.S. Congress, House 

Committee on Appropriations, Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 

1967, report to accompany H.R. 18381, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 2284 (Washington: GPO, 1966), pp. 21–22. Also, in the 

second session of the 89th Congress, both houses approved language 

in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1967 authorizing 

additional positions for the Capitol Police force for the Senate and 

required that the appointees have the equivalent of at least one year 

of police experience. Th e Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

1967, was the fi rst statute to require that applicants for the Capitol 

Police force have prior law enforcement experience. P.L. 89-545, 80 

Stat. 355 (Aug. 27, 1966).

19 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service,

History of the Committee on House Administration, by Paul Dwyer 

(Washington: Nov. 1987), pp. 143, 148.

20 “Authorizing the Employment of Additional Capitol Police for 

Duty Under the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 113, May 11, 1967, pp. 12326–12329. See also: U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Accounts, 

unpublished hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 1967 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 90 HHad-T.5), pp. 24–28.

21 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee on Police, unpublished hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., 

June 28, 1967 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 90 

HHad-T.3), pp. 3–4. On Aug. 30, 1967, James M. Powell, Chief of 

the U.S. Capitol Police, sent a letter to Rep. John W. Davis, Chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Police, stating that the “total 

authorized positions for the Capitol Police on the House” was 292. 

Of that number, 150 were permanent positions (142 privates and 

eight offi cers), and 132 were patronage positions (131 privates and 

11 offi cers). For a copy of the letter see: U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Special Subcommittee on Police, unpublished hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., Aug 24, 1967 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 90 HHad-T.8), attachment to 

hearing record.

22 H. Res. 1211 (90th Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Providing for an Additional Number of 

Positions on the Capitol Police Force for Duty Under the House of 

Representatives, report to accompany H. Res. 1211, 90th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1968); and “Additional 

Positions on U.S. Capitol Police Force for Duty Under the House 

of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, Oct. 11, 1968, 

pp. 30762–30763. 

23 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Police, Unpublished hearings, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 

May 13, 1968 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 

90 HHad-T.21).

24 H. Res. 1293 (91st Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Authorizing the Establishment of Six Additional 

Positions of Sergeant, and One Additional Position of Lieutenant on 
356 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the U.S. Capitol Police Force for Duty Under the House of Representatives, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H. Res. 1293, 91st

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1776 (Washington: GPO, 1970); and 

“Authorizing Additional Positions on U.S. Capitol Police Force for 

Duty Under the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 116, Dec. 17, 1970, pp. 42194–42195. 

25 H. Res. 449 (92nd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Creating Additional Positions on the U.S. Capitol 

Police Force for Duty Under the House of Representatives and providing a System of Overtime Pay for the U.S. Capitol Police, report to 

accompany H. Res. 449, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 92-244 

(Washington: GPO, 1971); “Creating Additional Positions and 

Providing a System of Overtime Pay for the U.S. Capitol Police 

Under the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, June 2, 1971, 

pp. 17497–17504; “U.S. Capitol: Scene of Violence Since 1814 

Fire,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 29, Mar. 5, 1971, pp. 503–505; and 

“Capitol Police Expansion,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 29, June 11, 

1971, p. 1266. 

26 H. Res. 360 (94th Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Creating Additional Positions on the U.S. Capitol 

Police Force for Duty Under the House of Representatives, report to 

accompany H. Res. 360, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-118 

(Washington: GPO, 1975); “Creating Additional Positions on the 

U.S. Capitol Police Force,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, Mar. 26, 

1975, pp. 8894–8895; and P.L. 95-59, 89 Stat. 282 (July 25, 1975).

27 H. Res. 661 (95th Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Providing for Two Additional Positions on the Capitol 

Police, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H. Res. 661, 95th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 95-522 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and 

“Providing for Two Additional Positions on the Capitol Police,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 123, July 29, 1977, pp. 25650–25652.

28 P.L. 96-152, 93 Stat. 1099-1100 (Dec. 20, 1979); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Chief and Certain Other 

Personnel of the Capitol Police, report to accompany H.R. 5651, 96th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 96-581 (Washington: GPO, 1979); and 

“Chief and Certain Other Personnel of the Capitol Police,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, Nov. 8, 1979, pp. 31507–31508.

29 H. Res. 229 (96th Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Providing for 15 Additional Positions on the U.S. 

Capitol Police Force, report to accompany H. Res. 229, 96th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 96-106 (Washington: GPO, 1979); and “Providing for 15 Additional Positions on U.S. Capitol Police Force,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 125, May 4, 1979, pp. 9889–9891. 

30 H. Con. Res. 785 (90th Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Relating to the Pay of the U.S. Capitol Police 

Force for Duty Performed in Emergencies, report to accompany H. 

Con. Res. 785, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1545 (Washington: 

GPO, 1968); and “Relating to the Pay of the U.S. Capitol Police 

Force for Duty Performed in Emergencies,” Congressional Record,

vol. 114, June 17, 1968, p. 17428. 

31 H. Res. 449 (92nd Cong.); “Creating Additional Positions and 

Providing a System of Overtime Pay for the U.S. Capitol Police 

Under the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, 92nd Cong., 1st

sess., June 2, 1971, pp. 17497–17504; and “Capitol Police Expansion,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 29, June 11, 1971, p. 1266. 

32 H. Res. 1309 (93rd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Relating to Offi cers and Members of the United States 

Capitol Police Under the House of Representatives, report to accompany 

H. Res. 1309, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1459 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974); and “Relating to Offi cers and Members of the United 

States Capitol Police Force Under the House of Representatives,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 120, Oct. 10, 1974, pp. 35180–35181. 

33 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Police, Camp-Ins, unpublished hearings, 90th Cong., 1st 

sess., Dec. 7, 1967 (Congressional Information Service, Inc, CISNo: 90 HHad-T.1).

34 “Th e Capital and Protesters: 1932 and 1968,” Washington Post, 

Times Herald, Apr. 23, 1968, pp. A1, B5; and Ben A. Franklin, 

“Most on a March by Poor are Barred From House Gallery for Lack 

of Passes,” New York Times, May 22, 1968, p. 22.

35 “U.S. Capitol: Scene of Violence Since 1814 Fire,” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 29, Mar. 5, 1971, p. 503; and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Police, Proposals Concerning Improvement of Security for all Capitol 

Buildings, unpublished hearings, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 1971 

(Congressional Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 92 HHad-T.6).

36 H. Con. Res. 550 (92nd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Providing for the Installation of Security 

Apparatus for the Protection of the Capitol Complex, report to accompany H. Con. Res. 550, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 92-925 

(Washington: GPO, 1972); “Installation of Security Apparatus for 

the Protection of the Capitol Complex,” Congressional Record, vol. 

118, Mar. 16, 1972, pp. 8659–8661, and Sept. 19, 1972, p. 31300; 

and “Capitol Security,” CQ Weekly Report, vol. 30, Sept. 2, 1972, 

p. 2250, and Sept. 30, 1972, p. 2472.

37 “Youths Raid Offi ce of Rep. Du Pont,” Los Angeles Times, May 

13, 1972, p. A9. See also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Subcommittee on Police, Discussion of the Establishment of Stronger Security Measures of Congressional Offi ces, unpublished hearings, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., May 18, 1972 (Congressional 

Information Service, Inc, CIS-No: 92 HHad-T.19).

38 H. Res. 398 (93rd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Reorganization of Supervisory Positions on U.S. Capitol Police Force Under House of Representatives, report to accompany 

H. Res. 398, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 93-243 (Washington: 

GPO, 1973); and “Supervisory Positions, U.S. Capitol Police Force, 

House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, June 4, 

1973, pp. 17812–17815. 

39 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 357

of Representatives During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 70–71.

40 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Personnel and Police, Police Issues, hearings, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990); and Walter Pincus, “Changes 

Backed for Hill Police,” Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1990, p. A21.

41 Rep. Mary Rose Oakar, “Establishing Position of Director of 

Employment Practices Under the Capitol Police Board,” remarks in 

the House, Congressional Record, vol. 136, June 21, 1990, p. 15077. 

See also: Walter Pincus, “Rep. Oakar Acts to Create Hill Police 

Ombudsman,” Washington Post, June 21, 1990, p. A17. 

42 P.L. 101-428, 104 Stat. 928-930 (Oct. 15, 1990); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Personnel and Police, Police Issues, hearings, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 

Mar. 22, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 1990); and “Capitol Police 

Retirement Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 136, Sept. 27, 1990, 

pp. 26286–26289. 

43 “Providing for Civilian Support Positions for the Capitol Police,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 137, Aug. 1, 1991, pp. 21004–21006.

44 P.L. 102-397, 106 Stat. 1949-1952 (Oct. 6, 1992); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Add to the Area 

in Which the Capitol Police Have Law Enforcement Authority, and 

for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 5269, 102nd Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-648 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 4–5.

45 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Add to 

the Area in Which the Capitol Police Have Law Enforcement Authority, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 5269, 102nd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-648 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 7.

46 “Adding to Capitol Police Law Enforcement Authority,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, July 7, 1992, pp. 18127–18131; “U.S. 

Capitol Police Jurisdiction Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Sept. 

17, 1992, pp. 25661-25662, and Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26766-26767; 

and P.L. 102-397, 106 Stat. 1949-1952 (Oct. 6, 1992).

47 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992), p. 62.

48 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Th ird Congress, 103rd Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 38.

49 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, House of 

Representatives Administrative Technical Corrections Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 2739, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-482 

(Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 30; and P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 

1723-1724 (Aug. 20, 1966).

50 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 

5; U.S. Congress, Committee on House, Oversight Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. X–XI; 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Sixth Congress 106th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-1056 (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. X, 11, 

17; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Seventh Congress, 107th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 

8–9, 20–21; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth 

Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: 

GPO, 2005), pp. 7, 19, 20. For Capitol Security Enhancement 

Plan see: P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-570 (Oct. 21, 1998). Th e act 

also provided that the “responsibility for design, installation, and 

maintenance of security systems to protect the physical security of 

the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress is transferred 

from the Architect of the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board. Such 

design, installation, and maintenance shall be carried out under the 

direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration 

of the Senate.” 112 Stat. 2681-570 (Oct. 21, 1998).

51 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Seventh Congress, 107th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 6, 

and U.S. Congress, Committee on House, Administration Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 4.

52 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Seventh Congress, 107th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-810 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 

6. See also: H.R. 5018 (107th Cong.); “Capitol Police Retention, 

Recruitment, and Authorization Act of 2002,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 148, June 26, 2002, pp. 11447–11450; and P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 

358-360 (Feb. 20, 2003).

53 Testimony of Rep. Bob Ney, Chairman of the Committee 

on House Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Hearing on E-Congress—Using Technology to Conduct Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations, hearings, 

107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002, pp. 1–2.

54 Testimony of James M. Eagen, House Chief Administrative 

Officer, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 
358 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Oversight Hearing on Congressional Mail Delivery, hearings, 107th

Cong., 2nd sess., May 8, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 1, 3–5.

55 Testimony of Bob Ney, Chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Security Updates Since September 11, 2001, 

hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003), pp. 2–3.

56 Testimony of James M. Eagen, Chief Administrative Offi cer, 

House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Hearing on Security Updates Since September 11, 

2001, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: 

GPO, 2003), pp. 7–8.

57 Testimony of Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Alan N. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, and Wilson 

Livingood, House Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Hearing on Security Updates Since September 

11, 2001, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 12–13, 15–16, 18–19. 

58 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Organization Meeting to Approve Committee Rules and Oversight Plan, 

Approve the House Perimeter Security Plan, and Make Announcements 

of Actions Taken Under Interim Authority, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st

sess., Feb. 5, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 4-5.

59 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Eighth Congress, 

108th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 108-816 (Washington: GPO, 2005), 

pp. 4–5, 7.

60 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing 

on the Emergency Preparedness of the House and the Evacuation of May 

11, 2005, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., June 9, 2005 (Washington: 

GPO, 2005), pp. 19, 22–23.

61 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress,

110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 

2008), pp. 9, 17.

62 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress,

110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), 

pp. 9–10.

63 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 11.

64 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 

110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), 

p. 58.

65 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 20.

66 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 20.

67 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 

20–21. See also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on the Administration and Management of the United 

States Capitol Police, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2008 

(Washington: GPO, 2008).

68 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing 

on United States Capitol Police Radio Upgrades, hearing, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess., June 18, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, United 

States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2008, 

report to accompany H.R. 5972, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-

679 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 1–2; and “United States Capitol 

Police Administrative Corrections Act of 2008,” Congressional Record, 

daily edition, vol. 154 , June 4, 2008, pp. H4901–H4902. 

70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 21. 

71 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 63. 

72 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, The 

Capitol Visitor Center Experience, hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 

17, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

73 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Capitol 

Visitor Center Act of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 5159, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-535 (Washington: GPO, 2008); 

“Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008,” Congressional Record, vol. 154, 

Mar. 5, 2008, pp. 3224–3229; “Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 154, Sept. 27, 2008, pp. 22650–22654; 

“Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008,” Congressional Record, vol. 

154, Oct. 2, 2008, pp. 23753–23757; and P.L. 110-437, 122 Stat. 

4983-4999 (Oct. 20, 2008).

74 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 
CAPITOL HILL SECURITY: PROTECTING CONGRESS AGAINST EVOLVING THREATS 359

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 10.

75 Personal identifi cation information (or PII) is any information 

that can be used to uniquely and reliably identify an individual. 

Examples of PII are Social Security numbers, birth dates, home 

address and telephone numbers, national origin, fi nancial, credit, 

and medial data.

76 Testimony of Phillip D. Morse, Sr., Chief of U.S. Capitol Police, 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Securing 

Personally Identifi able Information Within the United States Capitol 

Police, hearings, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 14, 2009, (Washington: 

GPO, 2009), pp. 8–9.

77 Testimony of Carl Hoecker, Inspector General, U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Securing Personally Identifi able Information Within the United States 

Capitol Police, hearings, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 14, 2009, (Washington: GPO, 2009), pp. 12–13.

78 Testimony of Phillip D. Morse, Sr., Chief of United State Capitol Police, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

United States Capitol Police Budget Concerns, hearings, 111th Cong., 

2nd sess., July 29, 2010, (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 81–82.

79 Testimony of Carl Hoecker, Inspector General of the U.S. Capitol, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, United 

States Capitol Police Budget Concerns, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., 

July 29, 2010, (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 81-82.

80 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, United 

States Capitol Police Budget Concerns, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., 

July 29, 2010, (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 99.

81 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, 

Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009, 111th 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 111-66 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 1.

82 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Capitol 

Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009, 111th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 111-66 (Washington: GPO, 2009); “Capitol Police 

Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 155, Mar. 31, 2009, pp. 9213-9214; “Amendments 

Submitted and Proposed,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 

155, Oct. 29, 2009, pp. S10936; “Text of Amendments (SA2720),” 

Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, Oct. 29, 2009, pp. 

S10940–S10942; “Providing for Concurrence With Amendment 

to H.R. 1299, United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009,” Congressional Record, daily edition, 

vol. 155, Nov. 6, 2009, pp. H12477–12487; “United States Capitol 

Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156, Feb. 25, 2010, pp. S773–S774; 

and P.L. 111-145, 124 Stat. 49-65.

83 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the 

One Hundredth Eleventh Congress, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 12.

84 Quotations are found in U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth 

Congress, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: 

GPO, 2011), p. 8. See also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the 

Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth 

Twelfth Congress, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 3.

85 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth Congress, 112th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 8; 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth Congress, 112th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 3.

86 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth Congress, 112th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 8; 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth Congress, 112th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 3.

87 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First 

Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the One Hundredth Twelfth Congress, 112th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 8.

88 P.L. 81-659, 64 Stat. 411-412 (Aug. 4, 1950); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to the Policing 

of the Buildings and Grounds of the Library of Congress, report to 

accompany H.R. 8958, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2431 (Washington: GPO, 1950).

89 P.L. 90-610, 82 Stat. 1201 (Oct. 21, 1968); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of August 4, 

1950 (64 Stat. 411), To Provide Salary Increases for Certain Members 

of the Police Force of the Library of Congress, report to accompany 

H.R. 10725, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1940 (Washington: 

GPO, 1968), pp. 1, 3; and “Salary Increases for Certain Members 

of the Police Force of the Library of Congress,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 114, Oct. 7, 1968, p. 29809. 

90 P.L. 93-175, 87 Stat. 693 (Dec. 5, 1973); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of August 4, 

1950 (64 Stat. 411), To Provide Salary Increases for Members of the 

Police Force of the Library of Congress, report to accompany H.R. 

10840, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 93-613 (Washington: GPO, 

1973), p. 2; and “To Provide Salary Increases for Members of the 

Police Force of the Library of Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 

119, Nov. 6, 1973, p. 35999. 
360 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

91 P.L. 100-135, 101 Stat. 811-812 (Oct. 16, 1987); “Library of 

Congress Police,” Congressional Record, vol. 133, July 21, 1987, p. 

20306. See also: P.L. 100-135, 101 Stat. 811-812; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Title, Rank Structure, 

and Pay of Employees Designated by the Librarian of Congress for Police 

Duty, report to accompany H.R. 2249, 100th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 100-214 (Washington: GPO, 1987).

92 P.L. 105-144, 111 Stat. 2667-266 (Dec. 15, 1997).

93 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundredth Tenth Congress, 110th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 20.

94 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing 

on the Implementation of the United States Capitol Police-Library 

of Congress Police Merger, hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 

2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007); U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Markup of H.R. 3690 U.S. Capitol Police 

and Library of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act, meeting 

before the Committee on House Administration, 110th Cong., 1st

sess., Nov. 7, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2008); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, U.S. Capitol Police and 

Library of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 3690, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 110-470, pt. 

1 (Washington: GPO, 2007); and P.L. 110-178, 121 Stat. 2546-

2555 (Jan. 7, 2008).
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 361

IX. OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES

Library of Congress

Joint Committee on the Library

One of the world’s leading cultural institutions, the Library 

of Congress began in late 1800 as a collection of 740 volumes 

and three maps located in a portion of the newly completed 

north wing of the Capitol. From these modest origins, the 

Library has come to serve in many roles:

a legislative library and the major research arm of 

the U.S. Congress; the copyright agency of the 

United States; a center for scholarship that collects 

research materials in many media and in most 

subjects from throughout the world in more than 

450 languages; a public institution that is open to 

everyone over high school age and serves readers in 

twenty-two reading rooms; a government library 

that is heavily used by the executive branch and 

the judiciary; a national library for the blind and 

physically handicapped; an outstanding law library; 

one of the world’s largest providers of bibliographic 

data and products; a center for the commissioning 

and performance of chamber music; the home of 

the nation’s poet laureate; the sponsor of exhibitions 

and of musical, literary, and cultural programs that 

reach across the nation and the world; a research 

center for the preservation and conservation of 

library materials; and the world’s largest repository of maps, atlases, printed and recorded music, 

motion pictures and television programs.1

A Library for Congress. In the course of its development, the Library has been guided by the venerable Joint 

Committee on the Library (JCL), as well as the Committee 

on House Administration and certain of its predecessor committees. Th e origins of the Library can be traced to a April 

24, 1800, statute allocating $5,000 “for the purchase of such 

books as may be necessary for the use of Congress at the said 

city of Washington, and for fi tting up a suitable apartment for 

containing them and for placing them therein.” Th e statute 

called for a select joint committee to carry out the provisions 

of the act.2

 Two years later, administrative arrangements were 

prescribed for the Library in a statute of January 26, 1802, 

authorizing the President of the Senate and the Speaker of 

the House to establish regulations and restrictions for the 

Library; providing for the appointment of a Librarian “by the 

President of the United States solely;” proscribing the removal 

of maps from the Library and limiting book borrowing to 

the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress; 

and establishing a second select joint committee to direct the 

purchasing of books for the Library.3

 A third select joint committee was created in 1806 to be responsible for purchasing 

additional books for the Library.4

Th e Joint Committee on the Library became a permanent standing committee in 1811.5

 Initially consisting of three 

members each from the House and the Senate, the JCL is one 

of the oldest permanent committees of Congress. In 1902, the 

membership of the JCL was increased to fi ve members from 

each chamber,6

 and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946 specifi ed that the House members would consist of “the 

chairman and four members of the Committee on House 

Administration.”7

 It also appears that, beginning in 1888, 

House members appointed to the JCL also constituted the 

membership of a standing House Committee on the Library.

Th e infant Library suff ered the loss of its home and part 

of its collections during the War of 1812. A substantial British expeditionary force disembarked from ships anchored in 

the Chesapeake Bay, marched across eastern Maryland, and 

invaded Washington where, on August 24, 1814, the intruders burned the White House, the Capitol, and the department 
362 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

buildings. Th is action was taken partly in retaliation for the 

burning of the public buildings at York (Toronto) in Canada 

by American troops in late April of the previous year. Awareness of this history prompted government clerks, notifi ed of 

the invaders advance, to begin removing offi cial documents, 

records, and fi les from the city, including congressional materials. Some committee papers and Library volumes, however, 

could not be removed before the British arrived and these 

were consumed in the Capitol fi re.8

Learning of the destruction in Washington, former 

President Th omas Jeff erson, knowing it would be exceedingly diffi cult to resupply the Library due to the continuing 

war and the riskiness of commerce with Europe, indicated his 

willingness to sell his own collection of books to Congress. 

Th is prospect soon prompted congressional action.

On October 7, the Joint Committee on the Library 

off ered a resolution authorizing and empowering it 

to “purchase . . . the Library of Mr. Jeff erson.” Th e 

committee sent a delegation to Monticello, where 

the collection was counted and found to contain 

6,487 volumes. Appraisers costed the volumes at $3 

each for the common-sized books, $1 for the very 

small ones, and $10 for the full-scale folios. Th e 

total came to $23,950, and the Senate promptly 

passed a bill to buy the collection.9

Critics and opponents in the House, however, objected 

to the cost of the purchase and questioned the usefulness 

of some of the books. Eventually, however, the purchase 

was authorized,10 as was the preparation of a library room 

to receive the collection.11 The incumbent “Librarian of 

Congress (and clerk of the House) Patrick Magruder never 

recovered from the loss of the Capitol, and he . . . resigned 

under pressure before Jeff erson’s books arrived.” His successor, George Watterston, survived a Library fi re that occurred 

just before Christmas in 1825 in which “only a few sets of 

duplicate government documents were lost.” He fared less 

well, however, with the arrival of President Andrew Jackson. Several weeks after the inauguration, Watterston, who 

had opposed Jackson’s election, was dismissed. Watterston’s 

departure led to an important result: “His experience was not 

lost on his successors, and without exception, the Librarians 

of Congress since that time have been as dispassionate and 

detached in their political careers as the Speaker of the House 

of Commons.”12

Th e Law Library. A separate, specialized Law Library 

within the Library of Congress was statutorily mandated in 

1832. Th e statute also gave justices of the Supreme Court 

access to the Law Library and authorized them to prescribe 

rules and regulations not only for their own use of it, but 

also for use by attorneys and counselors during the sitting 

of the Court.13 In 1840, Congress authorized the Librarian 

of Congress, under the supervision of the JCL, to exchange 

duplicate books and public documents for foreign publications, and provided for the production of 50 additional copies 

of the documents ordered to be printed by either house of 

Congress for use in this international exchange program.14 An 

1846 statute chartering the Smithsonian Institution provided 

that persons obtaining a copyright for any book, map, chart, 

musical composition, print, cut, or engraving under federal 

law was obligated to deliver one copy of same to the librarian 

of the Smithsonian and the Librarian of Congress.15

Fire again ravaged the Library of Congress in December 

1851, destroying some 35,000 of the 55,000 volume collection 

(including two-thirds of the Jeff erson library), almost all of the 

map collection, and several works of art. Th e following year, 

“a total of $168,700 was appropriated to restore the Library’s 

rooms in the Capitol and to replace the lost books.” Th is eff ort, 

however, was an attempt at maintaining the status quo: “the 

books were to be replaced only, with no particular intention of 

supplementing or expanding the collection.” Th is view refl ected 

the position of the incumbent Librarian, John S. Meehan, 

and the chairman of the JCL, Senator James A. Pearce, “who 

favored keeping a strict limit on the Library’s activities.”16

Th ere were other setbacks for the Library, not the least 

of which was the 1859 transfer of public document distribution responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior and, as the 

result of an eff ort to centralize copyright administration at 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 363

the United States Patent Offi ce, the loss of copyright deposit 

materials.17 In May 1861, President Abraham Lincoln relieved 

Librarian Meehan, replacing him with John G. Stephenson, 

who served until late 1864, when he resigned under a cloud 

of suspicion concerning fraudulent activities.18

Toward a National Library. Succeeding Stephenson 

was his Assistant Librarian and an ardent bookman, Ainsworth Rand Spofford, who would be one of the longest 

serving Librarians of Congress (1864–1897), second only to 

Herbert Putnam (1899–1939). Early on, the new Librarian 

cultivated good relations not only with the members of the 

Joint Committee,19 but also other Members of Congress, with 

the result that in 1865 he obtained $160,000 for the expansion of the Library in the Capitol20 and succeeded in getting the copyright deposit restored to the Library.21 In 1866, 

Spoff ord reached an agreement for transfer to the Library of 

Congress of the entire library of the Smithsonian Institution, a collection that included many scientifi c works and 

the publications of learned societies.22 In 1867, he arranged 

for copies of United States public documents at the disposal 

of the JCL to be used by the Library in exchange for foreign 

public documents through the Smithsonian Institution’s 

document exchange system.23 During the same year, he convinced the JCL to purchase the personal library of historian 

and archivist Peter Force for $100,000.24 Th e Force library 

became the foundation of the Library’s Americana and incunabula collections.

Later, in 1870, a statute revising, consolidating, and 

modifying patent and copyright law transferred all United 

States copyright registration and deposit activities to the 

Library, where they still remain.25 As the collections of the 

Library rapidly expanded during Spoff ord’s tenure, it became 

apparent that, for this and other reasons, new facilities were 

needed.26 In 1875, a report from the House Appropriations 

Committee said: 

The library has already become a thing whose 

growth is beyond control. So long as our country 

prospers and maintains its place among civilized 

and enlightened nations, its national library will 

grow under laws of accretion which it would scarce 

be possible, even were it desirable, to control.27

As early as 1873, Congress recognized that the burgeoning size of the congressional library located in the Capitol 

would require a comprehensive solution. In that year Congress authorized a design competition for a new library facility 

and appointed a commission to select a plan.28 A decade later, 

the Committee on the Library reported that the conditions 

of the collections had become intolerable:

Th e result is seen in the books stowed rank behind 

rank, so that their titles are concealed instead of 

exhibited, in alcoves overfl owing into every adjacent space and corridor, and in fl oors heaped high 

with books, pamphlets, musical compositions, and 

newspapers, from the ground fl oor of the Capitol 

to the attic.29

Initial design suggestions contemplated an expansion of 

the Capitol building itself. Based upon the projections of the 

Library’s rapid growth, the Architect of the Capitol estimated 

that it would not be long before “all the available space now 

occupied by the Senate, the House and the rotunda,” would 

be needed to store the collections.30

Attention then turned to selection of a suitable site for 

a separate library building. Several locations were considered and rejected. A site west of the capitol occupied by the 

Botanic Gardens was disapproved when it was determined 

that the new library building could not be erected there 

because “the grounds were mainly composed of rather soft 

soil and were full of treacherous bogs.”31 Similarly, sites 

at Judiciary Square and at New York Avenue and North 

Capitol Street were deemed to be at such a distance as to be 

inconvenient to Members.

Th e decision to locate the Library outside the Capitol 

marked the beginning of a process to relocate other Capitol 

tenants: the Supreme Court and House and Senate Committee offi ces relocated to new facilities on land surrounding 

the Capitol. As such, it was the fi rst step toward creating the 

extended Capitol complex we know today.
364 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

In April 1886, a new building for the Library of Congress was authorized, the structure to be located on First 

Street, S.E., east of the Capitol grounds.32 Construction 

began in earnest in 1889, and the new facility was opened to 

the public in 1897, the year in which Spoff ord relinquished 

his position as Librarian, but he continued as Chief Assistant 

Librarian until his death in 1908.

In the period of transition from Spoff ord to his successor, John R. Young, legislation was enacted reorganizing the 

Library, making the presidential appointment of the Librarian 

subject to Senate approval, and vesting the Librarian with 

sole responsibility for making its internal rules and regulations.33 A journalist and former diplomat, Young was a skilled 

administrator and “he initiated some of the most progressive 

programs of any comparable period in the Library’s history.”34

His tenure, however, would be brief. In failing health, he 

suff ered a fall on Christmas Eve in 1898, and died shortly 

thereafter on January 17, 1899, after 19 months as Librarian.35

Young’s successor, Herbert Putnam, would prove to 

be the longest serving Librarian to date. At the time of his 

appointment by President William McKinley, Putnam was 

in his fi fth year as librarian of the Boston Public Library and 

was president-elect of the American Library Association. Th e 

former librarian of the Minneapolis Public Library from 1884 

to 1891, he was the fi rst experienced librarian to direct the 

Library of Congress. During his 40-year tenure, Putnam took 

many actions aimed at bringing about better service by the 

Library to Congress, to the profession, and to patrons. Among 

his fi rst eff orts were eliminating the cataloging arrearage 

that resulted from Spoff ord’s active acquisitioning, pursuing 

Young’s program of converting the existing book catalogs to 

cards, and obtaining congressional authorization for the sale 

of Library cataloging cards to libraries in the United States 

and abroad.36

Institutionalizing Legislative Reference. Concurrently, Putnam was also given responsibility for operating the 

library of the House of Representatives.37 Th is development 

suggested that the Librarian was positively regarded as a manager, but congressional unhappiness about the Library’s role 

in the legislative process remained. A congressional reference 

facility was maintained in the Capitol, and the new Library 

building had special rooms set aside for the use of Senators 

and Representatives, but they were little used. “By 1912, when 

a congressional committee queried Putnam about congressional use of the Library,” according to one account, “he could 

point to an average of only ‘three or four’ telephone calls a day 

from congressmen during the session. Only 93 members out 

of 490,” it continued, “had used the Library in any way the 

previous year, and that fi gure included all requests for novels 

and magazines as well as offi cial business.”38

At the time, however, Putnam was aware of state eff orts, 

beginning with the Progressives in Wisconsin in 1901, to 

create Legislative Reference Bureaus, which, at a minimum, 

would support state legislators with ready reference services 

utilizing state library holdings. Indeed, “Putnam had resigned 

himself to the inevitability of the added service and . . . did 

a detailed analysis of the work and organization of all the 

known state bureaus and . . . described what would be 

required to set up a similar service in the Library and sent 

the completed report of over 20,000 words to Congress.”39

Several bills on the matter were off ered40 but, in the end, the 

new reference service came to be realized in 1914 through a 

Senate fl oor amendment, readily accepted in the House, to 

the Library’s budget for the next fi scal year. It enabled the 

Librarian “to employ competent persons to prepare such 

indices, digests, and compilations of law as may be required 

for Congress and other offi cial use.”41 Th us was established 

the base for what would become the Legislative Reference 

Service (LRS), which would undergo further development 

until it was reconstituted with a modifi ed mandate in 1970 

as the Congressional Research Service (CRS).42

Th e experience clearly impressed itself on Putnam’s 

mind, and he never again slighted his legislative 

ties. From this point on, his congressional relations 

were fl awless, so much so that by the 1920s, a conservative legislature was appropriating $1.5 million to buy the Vollbehr [early printing] collection 

of 3,000 rare books, and by the 1930s, Putnam’s 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 365

appropriation requests were being passed exactly as 

he requested them, frequently with only the most 

cursory review.43

A Trust Fund and Growing Library. Working with 

the JCL, Putnam obtained congressional support for the 

establishment of a Library of Congress Trust Fund in 1925, 

which enabled the acceptance of gifts and bequests from private persons and created a new cultural role for the Library, 

particularly concerning music and the performing arts.44

He also convinced Congress to build an annex to contain 

the Library’s ever growing collections. Legislation to acquire 

land for the new structure, to be located in the next block 

directly behind the original Library building, was adopted in 

1928,45 and an edifi ce was authorized in 1930.46 Construction proceeded slowly during the Great Depression years, 

but the facility was completed in 1938 and was opened to 

the public the following year. Putnam was ready to retire, but 

he remained in offi ce until his successor, the poet and writer 

Archibald MacLeish, assumed his duties. Putnam then held 

the position of Librarian Emeritus, which had been especially 

created for him.47 He continued with the Library through the 

period of World War II and a few years thereafter, maintaining regular offi ce hours until he died in August 1955.

A surprise nominee, MacLeish initially was strongly 

opposed by the American Library Association (ALA); but, 

after “a remarkably short time, he . . . endeared himself to 

the Library’s staff , earned their warm loyalty, and had been 

so forgiven by the profession at large that he was accorded a 

standing ovation at a subsequent ALA Convention, where he 

was introduced as the best friend American libraries had.”48

During his brief tenure, he streamlined the internal organization of the Library, “and he faced up to the need for a 

rationalized order of not only what materials the Library 

should seek and keep, but—possibly more important from 

a working librarian’s point of view—what it could throw 

away.”49 MacLeish commenced his duties as Librarian in 

October 1939, but took two leaves of absence, one to serve as 

the director of the Offi ce of Facts and Figures (1941–1942) 

and another to serve as the assistant director of the Offi ce of 

War Information (1942–1943), before resigning in December 

1944 to become Assistant Secretary of State for Public and 

Cultural Relations.

Disagreement on Missions. President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, without having nominated 

a successor to MacLeish. Th at task fell to President Harry S. 

Truman, who selected Luther H. Evans, a political scientist 

whom MacLeish had initially hired to direct the LRS and 

had subsequently made his deputy. A skilled administrator, Evans had managed the Library during MacLeish’s two 

absences during the war years, and had been recommended 

to Truman by MacLeish. An internationalist, Evans was of 

the view that the war had opened the world to American 

observation and interest. He developed an ambitious plan for 

the Library to serve the nation with greater knowledge of the 

world, a plan that required an increase in the Library’s annual 

appropriation from $5.1 million to $9.8 million. Appropriators declined to support the increase, explaining:

Th e original purpose in establishing the Library was 

to serve Congress; however, it would seem that the 

Library has evolved not only into a Congressional 

library but a national and international library as 

well. . . . If it is the desire to build and maintain 

the largest library in the world which, according 

to testimony, the Library of Congress is at present, 

that is one matter, and if it should be the policy to 

maintain a library primarily for the service of Congress, it is quite another matter from the standpoint 

of fi scal needs.50

Th is disagreement and the diff ering viewpoints underlying it, according to one assessment, “characterized Evans’s 

tenure.”51 On another matter:

Evans believed that since the Library was the largest government library at the federal level, it should 

play a unifying role among federal libraries and 

provide single-point acquisition for all, shared 

cataloging, and union records for the individual 

agencies. Congress was distressed at his apparent 
366 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

inability to understand the principle of separation 

of powers—his eagerness “to give the Congressional 

library away to the Executive.” As time went on, the 

mutual hostility went from distrust to resentment 

to the outright baiting of one another.52

A New House Administration Committee

Amidst this climate of deteriorating relations between Congress 

and its Librarian, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

was implemented. Th e statute established the Committee on 

House Administration; vested it and the other standing committees with authority to make investigations into any matter 

within their jurisdictions and with responsibility to “exercise 

continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 

agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is 

within the jurisdiction of such committee”; and directed the 

Librarian “to establish in the Library of Congress a separate 

department to be known as the Legislative Reference Service” 

(LRS).53 Th e new Committee on House Administration had 

both legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the Library, 

including the separately constituted LRS. Continuing as something of a “board of directors” for the Library was the JCL, 

which could advise and guide the Librarian on administrative 

matters, but exercised no legislative authority.

Oversight on a Broad Range of Issues. During the 

latter half of the 20th century, and into the initial years of the 

next century, the Committee on House Administration dealt 

with a broad variety of legislation and policy pertaining to the 

Library. Among the subjects the Committee addressed were 

the following: the microfi lming of the Library’s presidential 

papers; Library Trust Fund gifts and bequests; increased availability of books and music for the blind and handicapped; an 

American Folklife Center; a Center for the Book; distribution 

of congressional documents overseas; electronic information 

technologies, applications, and studies; fi nancial support for 

the Law Library of the Library of Congress; reauthorizing 

appropriations for the Library of Congress sound recording 

and fi lm preservation programs; a National Recording Registry; minority hiring and employment at the Library; the 

Library’s fi nancial and administrative operations; designation 

of a Librarian of Congress emeritus; commemoration of the 

bicentennial of the Library of Congress; fi nding innovative 

and aff ordable ways to make the Library’s collections accessible 

to every American; Library administration of the Speaker’s 

Civic Achievement Awards Program; preparation, printing, 

and distribution of a history of the House of Representatives 

by the Library of Congress; and establishment a Civil Rights 

oral history project at the Smithsonian Institution and Library 

of Congress. Th e Committee’s activities involving the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the Library 

of Congress Police Force are detailed in sections of this history 

devoted to those topics.

Financial and Administrative Operations. On May 

21, 1957, the Committee reported legislation drafted by the 

Librarian of Congress fi xing the responsibilities of the certifying offi cers and disbursing offi cer of the Library of Congress, 

and authorizing the Comptroller General to grant certifying 

offi cers of the Library relief (in its discretion and under certain 

conditions) and advance decisions. In favorably reporting 

H.R. 7234, the Committee “believe[d] that the Government 

should no longer be without the bonding protection at the 

Library which it requires of other agencies certifying to the 

disbursing of Federal funds.”54 Th e bill was signed into law 

on June 13, 1957.55

Th ree months later, the Committee’s attention shifted 

to the consideration of H.J. Res. 352, a bill authorizing and 

directing the Architect of the Capitol to prepare preliminary 

plans and estimates of the cost for an additional building 

for the Library of Congress. While the bill was referred to 

the Committee, it was studied and considered by the Joint 

Committee on the Library. During the previous three years, 

the Joint Committee, in conjunction with the Librarian of 

Congress, had “carefully analyzed the acute space shortage of 

this important function of Congress.” 56 H.J. Res 352, which 

the Committee favorably reported, was signed into law on 

May 14, 1960.57 Th ose preliminary plans and estimates subsequently led to the design and construction of the Library’s 

James Madison Memorial Building, which was authorized 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 367

by legislation referred to the House Committee on Building 

and Grounds.58

Abolishment of the position of the Superintendent of 

Buildings and Grounds in the Offi ce of the Architect of the 

Capitol prompted legislation in 1970 to transfer from the 

Architect to the Librarian of Congress authority to purchase 

offi ce equipment and furniture for the Library of Congress. 

Th e transfer was supported by the Committee on April 14, 

and the House and Senate subsequently concurred later that 

month. Th e change in purchasing authority became law on 

June 12, 1970.59

In mid-June 1976, the Committee cleared, and the 

House approved, a Senate-passed bill renaming the Library 

of Congress Annex as the Library of Congress Th omas Jeff erson Building, which was signed into law by President Gerald 

R. Ford on June 21.60

A decade later, the Joint Committee on the Library held 

a May 7, 1986 hearing on the impact of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law on the 1986 budget of the Library of Congress. Th e statute, formally known as the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Defi cit Control Act of 1985, established new 

budget procedures intended to balance the federal budget 

by fi scal year 1991. To achieve that goal, the law set annual 

maximum defi cit targets and mandated automatic acrossthe-board spending cuts, called sequesters, by the President 

to enforce the limits. At the hearing, the Joint Committee on 

the Library focused on the implications and impact of these 

new arrangements for the Library.61

Late in the second session of the 101st Congress (1989–

1990), the Committee considered legislation establishing a 

national policy on acid-free permanent papers. S.J. Res. 57 

recommended that “federal agencies require the use of acid 

free permanent papers for publications of enduring valued 

produced by the Government Print Offi ce or produced by 

Federal grant or contract, using the specifi cations for such 

paper established by the Joint Committee on Printing.” 

Th e joint resolution further stipulated that the Librarian of 

Congress, the Archivist of the United States, and the Public 

Printer shall jointly monitor the Government’s progress in 

implementing” this policy. Th e Committee was discharged 

on September 17, 1990, when the measure was called up 

under a suspension of the rules and approved by the House. 

Th at same day, however, the House also passed a Senate counterpart proposal containing the text of the House measure 

as an amendment. Th e Senate agreed to the version of the 

proposal as amended by the House on September 26, 1990. 

Th is bill was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush 

on October 12, 1990.62

During the 102nd Congress (1991–1992), the Committee’s Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials held a 

November 12, 1991, hearing on Library of Congress fi nancial management operations, receiving testimony from a 

General Accounting Offi ce audit team, Librarian James H. 

Billington, and other Library offi cials. Th e Committee and 

the Joint Committee on Printing jointly held a fi eld hearing 

at the Robeson County Public Library in Lumberton, NC, 

on September 21, 1992, concerning libraries and library services. Shortly thereafter, on October 2, 1992, the Committee 

reported a bill authorizing certain uses of property acquired 

by the Architect of the Capitol for use by the Library as a 

Special Facilities Center. Th e House approved the legislation that same day under a suspension of the rules, and the 

Senate passed the measure on October 7, 1992. Th is bill was 

signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on October 

23, 1992. 63

Representative William M. Th omas, Committee Chairman (then called House Oversight Committee) introduced 

legislation in early November 1997 to authorize the acquisition, by transfer of title from the Federal Reserve Bank 

of Richmond, parcels of land in Culpeper County, VA, 

to be used as the Library of Congress National Conservation Audio-Digital Preservation Center. H.R. 2979 also 

established a fund in the Treasury for gift and trust funds 

transferred to the Architect of the Capitol for structural and 

mechanical work, and for refurbishment of the property. 

Th e bill, which was referred to the Committee, was called up 

for a vote under a suspension of the rules on November 11 

and approved by the House that day. Th e Senate passed the 
368 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

bill the following day by unanimous consent. Th e President 

signed the bill on December 15, 1997.64

In the 106th Congress (1999–2000) the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000, was introduced on October 6, 2000, and referred to the Committee 

the same day. Th e act was taken up for consideration by the 

House under a suspension of the rules and approved by the 

House on October 17. Th e Senate passed the measure on 

October 31, 2000. On November 9, 2000, President William 

Jeff erson Clinton signed the act. It established three revolving 

funds for services provided by the Library and for the Federal 

Library and Information Network Program (FEDLINK) and 

related research activities.65

At a July 2006 Committee oversight hearing, Dr. James 

H. Billington laid “out his vision for how the Library of Congress will continue to transform itself in order to continue 

their goal being America’s premier library in the 21st century.” 

Th e hearing provided Committee members an update on the 

operations of the Library and the ways in which the Library 

was preparing for the future through its ongoing strategic 

planning, technology, design, and preservation initiatives.66

Th irteen months later, on October 24, 2007, a second 

oversight hearing on the management of the Library of Congress was held. Th is latter hearing focused on “three important 

issues facing the Library: inventory of the collection, cataloging, and the status of the Law Library.” Chairman Robert A. 

Brady pointed out in his opening remarks that the Library 

of Congress was “unique,” and the “only institution of its 

type.” Th e Library was, he reminded those in attendance, “the 

largest repository of books, fi lms, photograph, maps, music, 

and priceless artifacts in the world. It is the premier destination for researchers, both nationally and internationally. Th e 

Library is the research wing of the U.S. Congress, providing 

information and guidance daily to Members and staff alike. A 

collection of this size, however, can be both a blessing and a 

curse.” Th rough this hearing, the Committee sought to ensure 

that the Library developed adequate ways to keep track of the 

Library’s “precious collection,” new strategies were developed 

and implemented for cataloging in the every-changing digital 

environment, and the Law Library continued “to serve as the 

reference of record for legal research.”67

On July 14, 2010, the Committee held a markup of 

H.R. 5681, which would improve certain administrative 

operations of the Library of Congress. These operations 

included permitting the Librarian of Congress to dispose of 

surplus or obsolete property and use of the proceeds thereof, 

restructuring the Library’s student loan repayment program, 

and a provision to allow unobligated balances of expiring 

appropriations to be used for LOC obligations to the Department of Labor’s Workers Compensation Fund. Th e bill passed 

the House on July 27, 2010 and was subsequently referred to 

the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, but did not 

receive Floor consideration in the Senate prior to adjournment 

of the Congress.68

Less than a year later, in 2011, the Committee revisited 

the proposal permitting the Librarian of Congress to dispose 

of surplus or obsolete property. Once again the Committee did a markup session on the bill, and favorably reported 

H.R. 1934. On June 16, the bill, which was considered by 

unanimous consent, passed the House without objection. At 

the end of the fi rst session of the 112th Congress, H.R. 1934 

awaited Senate action.69

Most recently, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight turned its attention to ensuring continuity and effi ciency 

at the Library of Congress during leadership transitions. 

Appearing before the Subcommittee on April 18, 2012, were 

David Mao, appointed the 23rd Law Librarian of Congress 

three and a half months earlier; Dr. Mary Mazanec, who was 

appointed Director of the Congressional Research Service on 

December 5, 2011; Maria Pallante, appointed the 12th Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright 

Offi ce in June 2011; and Roberta Shaff er, Associate Librarian 

for Library Services, who served as Mr. Mao’s predecessor as 

the 22nd Law Librarian. Th e four witnesses, Subcommittee 

Chairman Philip Gingrey pointed out, represented the four 

service units that are “arguably the core” of the Library of 

Congress, and “comprise almost 70 percent of its budget.” 

Chairman Gingrey emphasized that it was important for 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 369

the Subcommittee to hear from the “witnesses how they are 

managing these resources, how they are fi nding greater effi -

ciencies, and how they will continue to meet their collective 

and individual missions in the future.”70

Also during the first session of the 112th Congress 

(2011–2012), Committee oversight staff held fi fteen oversight meetings with various Library of Congress staff , including representatives from, and regarding issues related to, 

the Copyright Offi ce, the Offi ce of the Inspector General, 

the Budget Offi ce, the Congressional Research Service, the 

Library’s Surplus Books Program, the Law Library, the Offi ce 

of Congressional Information and Publishing, the Legislative 

Information Systems Offi ce, and Human Resources.71

Minority Hiring and Employment. An equally critical 

aspect of the Committee’s oversight responsibility is monitoring the Library’s personel practices. On April 26, 1990, the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials held a hearing on 

the hiring practices and the under-representation of minorities in senior-level72 and higher positions at the Library. Opening statements were made by Subcommittee Chairman William L. Clay and Representative Gerry Sikorski, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Witnesses included 

Representative Major R. Owens, Librarian of Congress James 

H. Billington and other library offi cials; and Marc L. Fleischaker, attorney at law, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn.

In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Clay 

stressed that the subject of the hearing was “of great concern 

to both the subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials and 

the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on 

Post Offi ce and Civil Service. Th at is why were are jointly 

considering this matter today.” Th e Chairman continued by 

pointing out that the “library’s most recent affi rmative action 

report reveals that within all job categories at the Library, 

with the exception of the police unit, whites are more highly 

graded than minorities. Th is disparity in grade levels between 

minorities and white male employees is most evident in the 

Supergrade positions.” In the past, the Library’s affi rmative 

action programs have been some the “fi nest . . . ever committed to paper,” and “while minorities comprise 43 percent of 

the total work force, minorities make up less than 12 percent 

of the Supergrade positions.”73

Th e “principal propose” of the hearing, Chairman Clay 

explained, was not only to review the new affi rmative action 

plan recently drafted by the Library, “but to help facilitate the 

establishment of a defi nite timetable to end the vestiges of past 

discrimination.” “Today, as we examine affi rmative action 

at the senior levels of the Library of Congress, Chairman 

Sikorski stressed, “we have to keep in mind that a particular 

employment practice may not be inherently wrong in itself, 

however, where that practice has a disparate impact on the 

hiring of a minority, it’s time to consider who it eff ects, how it 

discriminates, and why we allow the practice to continue.”74

Subsequently, on March 18 and 24, 1993, the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, together with the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House 

Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, jointly held 

hearings on the Library’s progress in implementing affi rmative action policies and procedures to address under-representation of African-Americans and other minorities in 

senior-level positions at the Library.75 In 1994, Subcommittee 

Chairman William L. Clay issued a report highly critical of 

minority employment conditions at the Library and off ering 

eight recommendations to remedy the situation, beginning 

with the development and eff ective implementation of a written affi rmative action plan to address the problem of underrepresentation and under-utilization of minorities.76

On July 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on 

issues facing the Worklife Services Center at the Library. Th e 

Center, a division of Human Resources Services, is responsible for many critical aspects of employment administration 

including the processing of all personnel requests, such as 

awards and salary increases; counseling employees on retirement issues and providing information on benefi ts; and processing all leave requests and managing the Library’s leave 

bank. Th e intent of the hearing was to eliminate the defi ciencies in the Worklife Services Center in order to provide more 

effi cient and accurate means of managing employees at the 

Library of Congress.77
370 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Library Trust Fund Gifts and Bequests. In 1962, the 

Committee considered legislation to increase the statutory 

limit on gifts and bequests to the Library of Congress held in 

the Trust Fund on deposit with the Secretary of the Treasury 

from $5 million to $10 million. Reported from Committee 

and approved by the House on June 22, 1962, the measure 

was enacted into law on July 3.78

During the 1970s, at the request of the Library’s Trust 

Fund Board, two bills were introduced and reported by the 

Committee to make amendments to the Board’s enabling 

legislation. Th e fi rst, H.R. 8627 (94th Congress), allowed there 

to be an adjustment in the rate of interest paid by the U.S. 

Treasury to the permanent loan account of the Trust Fund 

Board. Th e existing rate, established in the 1925 Library of 

Congress Trust Fund Act, limited the annual rate to four 

percent. H.R. 8627 amended the 1925 law to allow a rate of 

interest to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, 

who is Chairman of the Library Trust Fund Board, based 

upon the current average yield comparable to an interest equal 

to that of similar federal trust funds. Following a November 

11, 1975, hearing by the Committee’s Subcommittee on 

Library and Memorials, the full Committee reported the bill 

on December 16. In February 1976, the House took up and 

amended a similar Senate bill, S. 2619 with the text of H.R. 

8627, and passed the Senate legislation, as amended. When 

S. 2619 and the House amendment thereto were returned to 

the Senate, the Senate proposed additional changes to the 

legislation. On May 10, 1976, the House accepted the Senate’s 

additional changes and the bill was presented to the President 

on May 12, 1976. Th e President signed S. 2619 on May 22, 

1976, resulting in P.L. 94-289.79

Th e second bill, S. 2220 (95th Congress), authorized the 

Secretary of the Treasury to designate an Assistant Secretary of 

the Treasury to serve in his place as a Member of the Library 

of Congress Trust Board. Th e Committee reported this bill, 

without amendment on April 18, 1978, the House passed the 

bill on May 1, 1978. It became law on May 12, 1978.80

On February 4, 1992, the Committee reported, and the 

House completed action on, a Senate bill providing for additional membership on the Library of Congress Trust Fund 

Board. S. 1415 was signed into law by President Richard M. 

Nixon on February 18, 1992.81

Books and Music for the Blind and Other Handicapped Persons. A House bill to establish within the Library 

of Congress a library of musical scores and other instrumental 

materials for further educational, vocational, and cultural 

opportunities in the fi eld of music for the blind was reported 

by the Committee on September 4, 1962. A Senate-passed 

version of the legislation was taken up by the House, however, 

and adopted by the House with amendments on September 

17. After the Senate agreed to the House amendments, the 

measure was enacted into law on October 9, 1962.82

In 1966, the Committee considered a House bill to 

enable the Library of Congress to make books available to 

quadriplegics, the near blind, and other handicapped persons. Statements and testimony were taken from Librarian 

of Congress L. Quincy Mumford, Members of Congress, 

and representatives of national organizations for the blind 

and the handicapped during hearings held on March 29, 

1966. Although the House measure was reported on June 2, 

a Senate counterpart proposal was passed in lieu on June 18, 

and was enacted into law on July 30, 1966.83

American Folklife Center. Beginning in 1971, “measures to increase the role of the federal government in folklife” 

started to attract congressional sponsors. “Th e initial impetus came from individuals and groups concerned primarily 

with the cultures of the Appalachian region, the South, the 

West, and native Americans. Th ey were soon joined by proponents of the so-called ‘ethnic,’ black, and Hispanic cultures 

who [had] rejected the total assimilation of the American 

‘melting pot.’” By the 93rd Congress (1973–1974), more than 

“200 Members of Congress and more than half of the Senate 

[had] cosponsored bills” providing for the establishment of 

an American Folklife Center.84

Th e issued was revisited by the Committee’s Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials in May 1974 during two 

days of extensive hearings on H.R. 17382, a bill to establish 

such a center in the Library. Witnesses included the Librarian of Congress, spokesmen for the Smithsonian Institution 

and the National Endowment for the Arts, and scholars and 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 371

representatives of folk and ethnic organizations. At the time, 

a “consensus was reached that the federal government has an 

appropriate role in the fostering and preservation of folk and 

ethnic traditions and that the federal government’s eff ort thus 

far in this regard has been clearly inadequate.” Th e Committee agreed that a serious federal eff ort was need to preserve 

the folk and ethnic cultures of Americans. While the Committee was aware that the National Endowments’ enabling 

legislation permitted activities in the folklife area, it opted for 

a separate Folklife Center in the Library that “could become 

a focal point for federal eff orts and for private participation.” 

Following the hearings, the Committee favorably reported 

H.R. 17382.85 Neither the House nor Senate took any subsequent action on bill, however, prior to the adjournment of 

the 93rd Congress eleven days later. 

Not to be deterred, the Committee thirteen months later 

favorably reported yet another bill to mandate creation of an 

American Folklife Center in the Library of Congress. H.R. 

6673 called for a Board of Trustees, refl ecting an appropriate regional balance and with no more than three of four 

appointees from the same political party, to direct Center 

operations. Th e Center was authorized to enter into contracts, 

make grants, and award scholarships to encourage research, 

scholarship, training, performance, and workshops. It was 

also directed to establish and maintain a national archive 

and center for American folklife.86 Approved by the House 

on September 8, the measure was passed by the Senate, with 

amendments, on December 11, 1975, and was subsequently 

enacted into law on January 2, 1976.87

On February 3, 1978, the Committee reported legislation to extend the authorization of appropriations for the 

American Folklife Center for a three-year period. Th e measure also stipulated that an appointee to the Center’s Board of 

trustees was to serve for only such time as he or she remained 

an offi cial with an agency concerned with folklife matters. It 

cleared the House on February 28. Th e bill passed the Senate 

passed on April 4, and it was signed into law by the President 

on April 17, 1978.88

Th e Committee again took up authorization of appropriations for the American Folklife Center in 1986. Following 

a June hearing on H.R. 4545 (99th Congress), the bill was 

favorably reported on August 15. H.R. 4545 passed the House 

on September 16 and the Senate on October 3, and became 

law on October 16, 1986.89

Center for the Book. Legislation providing for the 

establishment of a Center for the Book in the Library of 

Congress was reported by the Committee on July 12, 1977. 

Although it was approved by the House on September 26, 

the bill was tabled and a Senate-passed counterpart proposal 

was accepted in lieu with amendments. Subsequently, the 

Senate agreed to the House amendments, and the measure 

was enacted into law on October 13, 1977.90

Distribution of Documents Overseas. In May 1983, 

the Committee distributed a “Dear Colleague” letter to 

Members and committees clarifying procedures to be used 

in sending congressional documents overseas. Th e letter indicated that, in the future, the Exchange and Gift Division of 

the Library of Congress would distribute documents, such 

as congressional hearing transcripts, reports, and committee 

prints. Previously, distribution of such documents overseas 

was handled by the Smithsonian Institution. Th e letter noted 

that the Library also would ship congressional publications 

not available for sale through the Government Printing Offi ce 

as a courtesy to Members and committees.91

Electronic Information Technologies, Applications 

and Studies. Later in 1983, the Committee considered a Senate concurrent resolution authorizing the Librarian of Congress 

to study the changing role of books in the future, focusing on 

new electronic techniques aff ecting creation and use of information traditionally published in printed books. On October 

31, the Committee reported the measure; and on November 

1, the House approved it with amendments. Th e Senate concurred with the House amendments on November 18, 1983.92

A proposal by the Librarian of Congress to implement a 

pilot program that would assess a fee for a service providing 

remote access between the Library’s databases and 50 state 

libraries was a principal topic of discussion a September 18, 

1990, meeting of the Joint Committee on the Library.93

On April 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the 

Library’s information technology strategic planning. During 
372 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the session, Committee members were briefed on the latest 

IT initiatives undertaken by the Library, including plans for 

increasing digital security, expanding Library’s internet presence and the digitization of the Library’s inventory.94

Law Library. Th e Committee was one of two House 

panels to which legislation providing fi nancial support for the 

operation of the Law Library of the Library of Congress was 

referred. Th e Committee marked up the bill and ordered it 

reported on July 30, 2008. A written Committee report was 

fi led on September 27, at which time the other Committee 

was discharged from further consideration of the legislation, 

and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, but no further 

action was taken.95

Sound Recording and Film Preservation Programs.

In 2008, the Committee acted on legislation off ered by the 

chairman preauthorizing appropriations for the Library of 

Congress sound recording and fi lm preservation programs 

through fi scal year 2016. Th e Committee marked up the 

proposal and ordered it to be reported on May 7, 2008. Th e 

House, acting under a suspension of the rules, approved it 

on June 4. Th e Senate passed the bill without amendment on 

September 16, clearing the legislation for the President, who 

signed it into law on October 2.96

National Recording Registry. A proposal establishing 

a National Recording Registry in the Library of Congress to 

maintain and preserve sound recordings that are culturally, 

historically, or aesthetically signifi cant was introduced in 

mid-July 2000, and received House approval on July 25. Th e 

bill was referred to the Committee, but taken up for consideration by the House under a suspension of the rules. Th e 

Senate passed the measure, with amendments, on October 

25. Shortly thereafter, on November 1, the House disagreed 

to the Senate amendments, and the Senate receded on its 

amendments, clearing the bill for the President’s signature.97

Presidential Papers. Th e Committee’s Subcommittee on 

the Library held hearings in 1957 on legislation authorizing the 

Librarian of Congress to arrange, index, and microfi lm papers 

of the Presidents of the United States held by the Library of 

Congress. At the time the bill was being considered, the Library 

collection included the papers of 23 Presidents, ranging from 

those of George Washington to those of William Howard 

Taft.98 Former President Harry S Truman strongly supported 

the measure, as did Librarian of Congress L. Quincy Mumford 

and Archivist of the United States Wayne C. Grover.99 Th e bill 

was reported to, and approved by, the House on July 15, 1957, 

and subsequently enacted into law on August 16, 1957.100

Four years later, the Committee returned to the 1957 

statute authorizing the Librarian of Congress to arrange, 

index, and microfi lm papers of the Presidents of the United 

States held by the Library of Congress. Under consideration 

was a bill amending the statute by providing that offi cers 

or employees of the United States not be liable for damages 

for infringement of literary property rights by reason of any 

activity authorized by the 1957 law. Passed by the House on 

August 21, 1961, the amending legislation was enacted into 

law on September 21, 1961.101

Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church Records 

in Alaska. A major source of the vital records of Alaska, the 

records of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 

also captured the attention of the Committee in 1961. On 

June 28, the Committee reported a bill supported both by the 

Governor of Alaska and the Librarian of Congress directing 

the Librarian “to arrange and prepare the Church’s records 

for study and research, and to render accessible to the State 

and Federal agencies concerning the information contained 

therein relative to births, marriages, and deaths in Alaska.”102

Following House and Senate passage of S. 1644, the bill 

became law on July 31, 1961. 103

Librarian of Congress Emeritus. On July 13, 1987, the 

Committee reported a House joint resolution conferring the 

honorary status of Librarian of Congress Emeritus on Daniel 

J. Boorstin. Although the House adopted this measure on 

July 21, this passage was subsequently vacated and a similar 

Senate-approved bill was adopted in lieu with amendments 

the same day. On May 12, 1987, the Senate passed the bill 

into law when agreeing to the House version.104

Library of Congress Bicentennial Commemorative 

Coin Act of 1998. To commemorate the bicentennial of 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 373

the Library of Congress, Committee Chairman William M. 

Th omas introduced the Library of Congress Commemorative 

coin Act of 1998. Th e act, which required the Secretary of the 

Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the bicentennial 

of the Library, was not referred to the Committee. It was, 

however, actively involved in reviewing drafts of act as it was 

being considered. On six diff erent occasions discussed the 

legislation at Committee meetings in 1998.105

Commemorating the Library’s Bicentennial. In 

March 2000, a House concurrent resolution commending 

the Library of Congress and its employees, both past and present, on 200 years of service to Congress and the nation and 

encouraging the American public to participate in activities 

to commemorate the Library’s bicentennial was introduced 

and referred to the Committee on House Administration. On 

March 28, the measure was called up for consideration under a 

suspension of the rules and, subsequently, was approved by the 

House. Th e Senate adopted the proposal on April 13, 2000.106

State of Our Nation’s Libraries. Seeking to share the 

wealth of the collections of the Library of Congress more 

broadly throughout the United States, the Joint Committee 

on the Library held a hearing on the Library’s “links to the 

Nation’s state and local libraries.” Th e purpose of the April 21, 

1993, hearing was to “fi nding innovative and aff ordable ways 

to make the vast and unparalleled collections [of the Library 

of Congress] accessible to every American.” Chairman Charlie Rose in his opening remarks stressed that providing “such 

access through our public library system, universities and 

research institutions, home computers and other off -site locations is an exciting task for the Library of Congress with 

oversight by the Joint Committee.”107

Speaker’s Civic Achievement Awards Program. On 

July 13, 1987, the Committee reported a House joint resolution establishing the Speaker’s Civic Achievement Awards 

Program to be administered under the Librarian of Congress to recognize achievement in civic literacy by students, 

classes, and schools throughout the United States in grades 

fi ve through eight. Th e House approved the measure on July 

21; the Senate adopted the proposal with amendments on 

October 1; the House agreed to the Senate amendments on 

October 27; the President signed the modifi ed bill into law 

on November 9, 1987.108

History of the House Representatives. Legislation 

introduced in late June 1999 directed the Librarian of Congress to arrange for the preparation, printing, and distribution 

of a history of the House in consultation with the Committee. 

Although this proposal was referred to the Committee, the 

House took it up for consideration under a suspension of the 

rules and passed it on October 25. Th e Senate passed it by 

unanimous consent on October 29, 1999, and the President 

signed the bill on November 11, 1999.109 Th e history was 

published in 2006.110

Civil Rights Oral History Project. On September 

15, 2008, the Committee reported legislation requiring the 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and the Librarian 

of Congress, within the limits of available funds, to carry 

out a joint project to collect video and audio recordings of 

the personal histories and testimonials of individuals who 

participated in the civil rights movement from the 1950s 

through 1960s. Th e bill called for the two entities to survey 

existing collections of audio and video recordings of the 

reminiscences of civil rights movement participants, to collect additional recordings and relevant visual and written 

materials, and make the resulting collection available for 

public use through the two institutions. Under a suspension 

of the rules, the House approved the bill on September 17 

but no further action was taken on the proposal during the 

110th Congress.111

Early in the 111th Congress, however, the Project was 

revisited and this time the effort proved successful. On 

May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Civil 

Rights History Project Act of 2009. The law directs the 

Library of Congress (LOC) and the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and 

Culture (NMAAHC) to conduct a survey of existing oral 

history collections with relevance to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM), and to record new interviews with people 

who participated in the Movement. Th e survey information 
374 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

and portions of selected interviews are to be made available 

worldwide through the Project website. Th e interviews will 

become a permanent part of the Library of Congress and the 

Smithsonian Institution. Th e act was marked up on March 

25, 2009. Th e House suspended the rules and passed the bill 

on April 22 by a 422-0 vote. Two days later it passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent.112

Congressional Research Service

Origins and Development

Th e idea that legislators should have informational and reference services available to support their policymaking eff orts 

was fi rst acted upon in the late 19th century, when the new 

Director of the New York State Library in Albany, New York, 

Melvil Dewey, established a “legislative reference section.”113

While this service chiefl y involved indexing and comparison 

of legislation, it was arguably the forerunner of similar library 

services today. Th e idea gained ground when taken up by 

some in the Progressive Movement114—fi rst in Wisconsin, 

where reform proposals had the support of Governor Robert 

LaFollette. After the state legislature authorized, in 1901, 

the establishment of a library in the state capitol for legislator 

use, Charles McCarthy, the newly designated “document 

cataloger,” became an active purveyor of information to state 

legislators. By 1903, the state legislature began appropriating 

funds for a designated “legislative reference service.”115

Soon thereafter, a handful of federal legislators sought to 

provide Congress with a similar resource. Several Members of 

Congress proposed various versions of such a service between 

1907 and 1911, but, not surprisingly, the concept was pushed 

most strongly by two legislators from Wisconsin—Senator 

Robert LaFollette, the former governor, and Representative 

John Nelson. As a result of one of their proposals, Congress 

formally mandated legislative reference services in 1914 legislation funding operations of the Library of Congress.116 Although 

Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam had established some 

limited reference assistance to Congress in 1901, the 1914 act 

allowed for expansion of this role. Th e act authorized establishment of what later became the Legislative Reference Service 

(LRS), which was directed to supply Congress with information to support its legislative role. Th is support consisted largely 

of providing legislative tracking services, summarizing facts, 

and transmitting publications from the Library’s holdings, as 

well as research and analysis produced by other government 

agencies, and private and scholarly sources.117

In 1946, the Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress recommended sweeping changes in the internal 

structure of Congress and its support agencies, which were 

adopted in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.118 Th is 

act gave permanent authority to LRS as a separate entity within 

the Library. One concern that prompted the reorganization—

and the authority it provided to LRS—was the need for Congress to be independent of the executive branch for competent, 

high-level policy analysis and research. In order to address this 

concern, the act directed LRS to hire policy specialists who 

could provide expertise to Congress within each of the subject 

fi elds covered by the newly streamlined committee system 

also provided for in the act. As a result, LRS evolved further 

from being a reference service to something closer to its current incarnation as a corps of issue experts. Th e Committee on 

House Administration, which was established by the 1946 act, 

was given legislative and oversight jurisdiction for the Library 

of Congress and LRS. At that time, LRS employed 66 staff and 

received $178,000 in annual appropriations.119

Th e next time Congress signifi cantly changed its internal 

organizational structure—with passage of the Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1970—it once again directed LRS to 

redefi ne itself to better serve the informational and analytic 

needs of Congress.120 Th e act renamed the Legislative Reference Service the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to 

emphasize the agency’s role in serving only the Congress and 

its importance as an analysis resource with complete research 

independence, not simply as a reference service. Th e Service 

was also directed to provide core support to standing and select 

committees of each chamber, in addition to individual Members. Th e act explicitly addressed the Service’s relationship with 

the Library of Congress, mandating that CRS be provided 

“maximum practicable administrative independence.”121
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 375

While the House and Senate currently coordinate their 

supervision of the Library and its components through the 

Joint Committee on the Library (JCL), the Committee on 

House Administration retains House legislative and oversight 

jurisdiction for CRS.122 For example, since 1972, the Director of 

CRS has submitted annual reports to the JCL, in accord with 

the 1970 act. In addition to the Committee on House Administration jurisdiction detailed in House Rule X, the annual 

legislative branch appropriations bill includes language that 

precludes CRS from publishing reports (other than the Digest 

of Public General Bills) without prior approval from either the 

Committee on House Administration, or its counterpart, the 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.123

At the conclusion of the 110th Congress, the Service had 

some 675 employees and an annual budget of approximately 

$102 million.124 CRS continues to serve a variety of legislative needs, producing oral and written responses to inquiries 

from congressional committees and Member offi ces, writing 

in-depth analyses of and conducting briefi ngs on pending 

legislation and policy issues of congressional interest, providing orientation to new Members, training for congressional 

staff on legislative procedures, and compiling and organizing 

data on legislative activity. In each of these functions, CRS 

operates under its congressional mandate for strict confi dentiality, accuracy, authoritativeness, timeliness, objectivity, and 

nonpartisanship.

LRS/CRS and Committee on House Administration

Since its fi rst years in existence, the Committee on House 

Administration has provided guidance and oversight of 

CRS, and its predecessor, the Legislative Reference Service 

(LRS). It has also engaged in a productive working relationship with the Service on a wide variety of initiatives and 

projects that have signifi cantly aided the House in its legislative and administrative functions. When the Committee 

was established, management at LRS looked to it for policy 

guidance, especially with regard to interpretation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.125 Committee members 

responded by undertaking a study in 1948 of the work of 

LRS and its relationship with standing committee staff , testifying at legislative branch appropriations hearings, issuing 

directives on the appropriate content of LRS reports, and 

by providing clear protocols for LRS staff loaned to House 

committees.126 As part of ongoing eff orts to understand and 

address the challenges of LRS, the Committee printed a 1958 

report from then-LRS Director, Dr. Ernest Griffi th, entitled 

Th e Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress: A 

Memorandum on Its Achievements, Problems and Potential, 

With Recommendations for Its Improvement, which addressed 

many of the issues with which the Committee would concern 

itself in coming years.127

As House committees and Members’ offices placed 

increased emphasis on receiving relevant and timely legislative and policy information, the Committee helped guide 

the Service in making its expertise more valuable and accessible to Members, committees, and staff . In recent years, for 

example, the Committee has worked with the CRS Director 

to ensure that the services to Congress include economic, 

social, and political forecasting on issues relating to racial 

minorities.128 Th e Committee further worked with CRS on 

its plan to streamline access to CRS resources by closing the 

underutilized Ford Reference Center, changing the hours 

of operation at other reference centers, and ensuring CRS’s 

congressional focus by restricting the Service’s briefi ngs to 

non-congressional audiences.129 In addition, the Committee 

has been instrumental in facilitating the availability of the 

new CRS product homepage and demonstrations of its uses 

to staff .130 In recent years, CRS has participated in a Committee Task Force that examined CRS on-line issues and worked 

with the Committee on the implementation of THOMAS 

and the new Legislative Information System (LIS).131 CRS 

has also supported the Committee’s work relating to House 

Information Resources (and its predecessor, House Information Systems).

Beyond overseeing and streamlining CRS services to 

committees and Members, the Committee has also been 

instrumental in encouraging and facilitating an enhanced 

role for CRS in legislative process training and policy briefings for congressional staff . For example, the Committee 
376 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

co-sponsored CRS’s newly established Legislative Institutes 

when they began in FY1977, and co-sponsored District/

State Staff Institutes in FY1980 (in conjunction with the 

committee’s Offi ce of Management Services).132 In the latter 

case, the Committee staff assisted CRS in off ering institutes 

to staff in selected locations outside the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. Soon afterwards, the Committee took a 

comprehensive look at possible overlap in such orientation 

and training eff orts. As a result of the study, the Committee helped streamline such eff orts by discontinuing certain 

duplicative training offered by the Office of the Clerk of 

the House in the 97th Congress (1981–1982), for example.133

Th e Committee facilitated the popularity of these training 

opportunities with staff by actively disseminating information to them (including district staff ) about available CRS 

programs.134 Recently, the Committee noted that CRS had 

been doing work in presenting new Member orientations over 

the years; beginning in the 105th Congress, the Committee, 

in collaboration with joint House leadership, designated the 

Service’s programs as the offi cial seminar on congressional 

issues for new House Members.135

Additionally, the Committee has relied on CRS for 

assistance with various reports and directives to House committees and Members on organizational issues. In 1978, the 

Committee printed a compilation of CRS reports that documented changes in the budget, staffi ng, and administration of 

the House during the post-WWII era.136 Experts from LRS/

CRS wrote additional specialized reports at the request of the 

Committee, including History of the House of Representatives 

in 1962, an expanded and revised version of the same (History 

of the United States House of Representatives: 1789-1994) in 

1994, and a history of all congressional actions pertaining to 

the Capitol Police force from 1789–1984 (1985).

137 Over the 

years, LRS/CRS also assisted with the preparation of other 

reports printed by the Committee, as well as the activity of 

special task forces. For instance, CRS helped prepare Committee Records Guidelines: Guidelines for Standing and Select 

Committees in the Preparation, Filing, Archiving, and Disposal 

of Committee Records, published in 1979,138 and supported a 

Member Task Force established by the Committee in 1990 

to suggest guidelines to the House in implementing the Fair 

Labor Standards Act for the chamber.139

The JCL held a meeting on September 18, 1990, to 

consider several matters including: (1) approval of proposed 

guidelines for seeking private funding for programs of the 

Congressional Research Service (CRS); (2) approval of a 

proposal, presented by the CRS director, to establish an 

information and research exchange program between CRS 

and the legislature of the Soviet Union; and (3), pursuant 

to the recommendations of the Speaker’s task force on the 

development of parliamentary institutions in Eastern Europe, 

the appropriateness of the Library, particularly its CRS, to 

participate in the congressional eff ort to assist the emerging 

democracies in Eastern Europe.140

While the Committee has helped provide valuable guidance to CRS regarding its services to Congress, it has also 

looked at various CRS management issues—for example, 

with regard to hiring and workforce issues. Th is oversight 

has usually been in the context of personnel issues within the 

broader context of the Library of Congress. In 1990 and 1993, 

the Committee held joint hearings with the Committee on 

Post Offi ce and Civil Service on minority underrepresentation at the Library, including CRS.141 In the 109th Congress 

(2005-2006), the Committee conducted an oversight hearing 

on current Library of Congress initiatives, which included 

some attention to CRS workforce issues—specifically, a 

reduction-in-force action relating to support personnel.142

During the 112th Congress, as directed by law, the Joint 

Committee on the Library began consultations regarding the 

search for a new Congressional Research Service Director.143

Subsequently, on December 5, 2011, Librarian of Congress James 

H. Billington appointed Dr. Mary B. Mazanec as CRS Director.

Congressional Printing, Document Distribution, 

and Records Management

Origins and Development

Congress has a long history of providing for the offi cial printing and publishing of not only the literature of the House 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 377

of Representatives and the Senate, but also the literature of 

the executive branch and the Supreme Court.144 Key players 

in this policymaking and administration were the printing 

committees of Congress, the Joint Committee on Printing 

(JCP), and, since 1947, the Committee on House Administration. Five senior members of the Committee on House 

Administration serve, by law, as the House members of the 

Joint Committee.

Establishing Printing Arrangements. Beginning in 

1789, the new federal Congress quickly provided for the 

printing and distribution of the laws and treaties,145 the preservation of state papers,146 and the maintenance of offi cial 

fi les in the new departments.147 Th e printing and distribution 

of both the House and Senate journals was authorized in 

1813.148 Congress arranged for a contemporaneous summary 

of chamber fl oor proceedings to be published in the Register 

of Debates beginning in 1824. It then switched in 1833 to 

the weekly Congressional Globe, which sought to chronicle 

every step in the legislative process of the two houses, and 

then established a daily publication schedule for the Globe in 

1865.149 Subsequently, the Congressional Record, produced by 

the new, statutorily mandated Government Printing Offi ce 

(GPO), succeeded the Globe in March 1873 as the offi cial 

congressional gazette.150

Provision was initially made in 1846 for the routine 

printing of all congressional reports, special documents, and 

bills.151 While these responsibilities were met for many years 

through the use of contract printers, such arrangements 

proved to be subject to considerable political manipulation 

and abuse. Consequently, in 1860, Congress established the 

GPO to produce all of its literature and to serve, as well, the 

printing needs of the executive branch.152 Additional aspects 

of government-wide printing and publication policy were set 

with the landmark Printing Act of 1895, which is the source 

of much of the basic policy still found in the printing chapters 

of Title 44 of the United States Code.153

Establishing Distribution Arrangements. In addition to providing for the publication of the statutes and a 

variety of legislative literature (including executive branch 

materials, which were initially produced as House or Senate 

documents), promoting newspaper reprinting of federal laws 

and treaties, and circulating printed documents through 

offi cial sources, Congress also developed a depository library 

program to further facilitate public knowledge of government 

actions. In 1859, the Secretary of the Interior was statutorily 

tasked with distributing all books printed or purchased for 

the use of Congress or executive branch entities.154 A decade 

later, in 1869, a subordinate offi cer in the department—the 

Superintendent of Public Documents—was charged with this 

responsibility.155 Distributions were made to certain libraries 

located throughout the country which were designated as 

depositories for government documents. Th e arrangement 

had begun in 1813 with congressional materials,156 and was 

extended in 1857 to include other federal literature.157 Th e 

Printing Act of 1895 relocated the Superintendent of Public 

Documents, making the position, retitled the Superintendent 

of Documents, an integral and important element within 

the GPO.158

In the relocation process, the Superintendent was also 

given responsibility for managing the sale of government 

documents and preparing periodic indices of GPO products. 

Until 1904, the sale stock available to the Superintendent 

derived entirely from such materials as were provided for this 

purpose by the departments and agencies or were returned 

from the depository libraries. Th e situation was altered when 

the Superintendent was granted authority to reprint any 

departmental publication, with the consent of the pertinent 

Secretary, for public sale.159 Congress legislated comparable 

discretion to reproduce its documents in 1922.160

Created in 1947 under the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1946,161 the Committee on House Administration 

succeeded the House Committee on Printing (1846–1946) 

as committee of jurisdiction for various aspects of government 

printing. Th ese included GPO operations and management, 

amendment and modifi cation of the printing chapters of 

Title 44 of the United States Code, and printing and correction of the Congressional Record. Th is statute also made the 

chairman and two members of the Committee on House 
378 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Administration members of the Joint Committee on Printing (discussed below),162 which was increased to 10 members 

of evenly divided bicameral representation in 1981.163 Of 

the fi ve Committee on House Administration membership 

positions, three seats are represented by the majority and 2 by 

the minority. Oversight of government printing was vested 

in both panels.

Contract Printers and Printing Act of 1819. In the initial years of its operations, the federal government relied upon 

contract printers to produce its initial public documents. 

Until 1794, such printing was paid for from the contingent 

fund of Congress and the executive departments, but that 

year it was included in a line item concerning “fi rewood, 

stationary, and printing-work.”164 When the government 

moved to Washington in 1800, some Philadelphia printers 

followed it and other printing shops sprang up in the city, 

producing newspapers and other literature. As a consequence 

of the personal politics of some of these printers, their newspapers became unoffi cial party organs, and the production 

of public printing was transformed into a form of spoils. Th is 

development contributed oftentimes to problems concerning 

the quality, pricing, and timely production of public printing. Such problems, however, appear to have existed to some 

extent from the outset of the letting of printing to the lowest 

bidder. “Th e work was done in a very imperfect manner,” 

according to one assessment of the situation during the early 

Washington years, “and excited from time to time an endless 

amount of unfavorable criticism; it was also very expensive 

and unsatisfactory because of delays and inaccuracies in its 

execution.”165

A joint investigating committee established in December 

1818 proposed a National Printing Offi ce as a remedy, but 

qualifi ed this recommendation as requiring “some deliberation” which neither the congressional schedule nor the press 

of other business would allow.166 Instead, Congress approved 

the hastily drafted Printing Act of 1819, which established a 

schedule of prices, authorized each house to elect a printer to 

execute its work, and permitted the same elected printer to 

serve both the House and the Senate.167 Th e law was fl awed 

in two regards: its fi xed rates for printing did not anticipate 

printing technology advances, and its institutionalization of 

congressional printers further entrenched partisan politics in 

the production of public printing. As experience was gained 

under the 1819 statute, “it was evident that the rates fi xed by 

that law were too high and that printing profi ts were large.”168

An investigation of the situation by a House committee 

during the fi rst three months of 1840 resulted in a recommended reduction in printing rates by 15% and closer attention to improved printing techniques on production costs. 

Minority members of the panel, however, sought a deeper 

cut in printing rates; revived the idea of a National Printing 

Offi ce; and “showed that current Government printing at 

1819 rates had cost $150,000, but under Government supervision would have cost $80,000.”169 Eventually, printing rates 

were reduced by 20%, but legislation establishing a government printing facility was rejected.

Joint Committee on Printing. Two years later, Congress restored lowest bidder contract printing for the production of congressional and executive department stationary 

and all other executive job printing.170 Congress next restored 

the contract system for all of its public printing in 1846, and 

established, as well, a bipartisan, bicameral, six-member joint 

committee “to remedy any neglect or delay on the part of 

the contractor to execute the work ordered by Congress, and 

to make a pro rata reduction in the compensation allowed, 

or to refuse the work altogether, should it be inferior to the 

standard.”171 Th is was the mandate for the Joint Committee 

on Printing. While promising, this “system, which proved 

the most expensive of any tried up to this time, and perhaps 

the most unsatisfactory, remained in operation until 1852.”172

Th at year, Congress repealed the 1846 statute, returned to 

each house electing a printer, and created a Superintendent 

of the Public Printing with a two-year term to supervise work 

ordered by the congressional printers.173 Th e Superintendent 

was to be “a practical printer, versed in the various branches of 

the arts of printing and book-binding, and . . . not . . . interested directly or indirectly in any contract for printing for 

Congress or for any department or bureau of the government.” Th e Joint Committee on Printing was continued, and 

was empowered to decide disputes between the SuperintenOVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 379

dent and the congressional printers. One of the subsequent 

House printers, Cornelius Wendell, shortly after his election to his position in February 1856, established a modern 

printing plant at North Capitol and H Streets in northwest 

Washington, which would later become the home of the 

Government Printing Offi ce (GPO).174

Government Printing Offi ce. Congressional investigations in 1858 and 1860 revealed exorbitant cost, profi teering, 

and poor quality in the production of public printing. Both 

inquiries recommended the creation of a government-owned 

printing offi ce to remedy the situation.175 In June 1860, Congress, after some bitter debate, mandated the establishment of 

the GPO by joint resolution. Scheduled to begin operations 

on March 4, 1861, the new offi ce was under the general direction of the Superintendent of Public Printing, with the Joint 

Committee on Printing setting paper standards.176 Th e former 

Wendell printing facility was purchased as the home for the 

GPO. Shortly after the offi ce opened for business, rebellion 

erupted in South Carolina, and the nation prepared for civil 

war. Government Printing Offi ce employees not only set 

type day and night, but also drilled as soldiers to protect the 

building and the city.

Government printing orders mushroomed. Presses 

jammed every corner. Machines in private shops 

were rented. Paper doubled, trebled in cost, and 

became almost unobtainable, and in 1864 sold for 

$560 a ton. Printers demanded $24 a week. A private fi rm lent payroll money to the GPO. Yet in the 

fi rst six months of operation, the Offi ce saved more 

than its purchase cost of $135,000.177

Th e Government Printing Offi ce fared well during the 

war years. In 1865, funds were appropriated for an expansion 

of the printing facility, the addition providing space for nearly 

1,000 workers. Th e dollar value for printing production was 

a little over $2 million, and the Superintendent announced 

that, while executive department requisitions had decreased 

considerably with the cessation of warfare, “the large amount 

of deferred printing for Congress and that which will be 

ordered at the present session . . . will doubtless be enough to 

work the whole establishment up to its full capacity for the 

next 2 years.”178

In February 1867, the head of GPO was designated the 

Congressional Printer, who was to be elected by, and was to 

be deemed an offi cer of, the Senate. Candidates for the new 

position were to be a “competent person, who shall be a practical printer,” and would “manage the government printing 

offi ce.” Th e Superintendent of Public Printing position was 

abolished.179

When the GPO began operations in 1861, the production of the Congressional Globe, the offi cial congressional gazette reporting House and Senate fl oor proceedings, 

remained in private hands—the contract printers Blair & 

Rives. A decade later, criticism was mounting over the bulk 

and excessive cost of Globe printing. Th ere was reluctance in 

some quarters to renew the Globe contract, which was due 

to expire on March 4, 1871. When the Joint Committee on 

Printing invited proposals for the production of the congressional gazette, among those submitting a bid was Congressional Printer Almon W. Clapp. Subsequently, provision was 

made in the civil expenses appropriation act of March 3, 

1873, indicating that, “until a contract is made, the debates 

shall be printed by the congressional printer, under the direction of the joint committee on public printing on the part of 

the Senate.”180 On March 5, 1873, the fi rst GPO-produced 

edition of the Congressional Record—the name selected by the 

Joint Committee on Printing for the new gazette—made its 

appearance (discussed below).181

In 1876, the head of GPO was designated the Public 

Printer, who was to be appointed by the President with Senate confi rmation. An appointee to the position was to be “a 

suitable person, who must be a practical printer, and versed 

in the art of book binding.”182

Entering the Modern Era. Th e landmark Printing Act 

of 1895 consolidated and revised fragmented printing law 

made during the previous 50 years. It relocated the Superintendent of Public Documents from the Department of 

the Interior to the GPO, where the position was retitled the 

Superintendent of Documents and made responsible for the 

distribution of public documents, as well as their sale. Th is 
380 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

offi cial would also prepare periodic indices of GPO products, 

and would manage the depository library program. In addition, the statute offi cially recognized the apprentice system at 

the GPO, and fi xed the compensation of printers, pressmen, 

and bookbinders.183 Th ese provisions, however, would soon 

be tested and outstripped by advancing technology, new labor 

demands, and burgeoning costs. One important development 

was the Kiess Act of 1924 which authorized the Public Printer 

to regulate and fi x rates of pay for GPO employees through a 

wage conference with each of the trade unions. Rates agreed 

upon were subject to approval by the Joint Committee on 

Printing before becoming eff ective.184

Earlier, in 1917, the Joint Committee on Printing in view 

of its administrative responsibilities, had been authorized to 

exercise, when Congress was not in session, all of its powers 

and duties as provided by law in the same manner as when 

Congress was in session.185 Th e Joint Committee on Printing 

was particularly beleaguered during the period of World War 

II. Th e departments of War and Navy, as well as the emergency war agencies, pressed the Joint Committee for waivers 

to have their many printing needs met by contractors without 

supervision by, or conformity with the requirements of, the 

GPO. When these entities, and other government organizations, found that their greatly expanded printing needs were 

frustrated by slow deliveries, poor quality of work, multiple 

typographical errors, fl imsy grades of paper, and damaged 

products, they heaped their many complaints on the Joint 

Committee on Printing, “whose lot during the war was not 

a happy one.”186

In 1946, as part of the post-war conversion of the federal 

government, the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), predecessor to 

the current Offi ce of Management and Budget, transferred 

a number of agency fi eld printing facilities to the GPO with 

attendant equipment and personnel problems and private 

printer concerns regarding their continued operations. Public Printer Augustus B. Giegengack, working with the Joint 

Committee on Printing, sought to consolidate and eliminate these fi eld plants, to make operational changes in those 

remaining, and to induce BOB participation in a study leading to the revision and codifi cation of the printing laws.187

While Public Printers, with Joint Committee on Printing 

support, enjoyed some success in paring down inherited printing fi eld plants during the next several years, revision of the 

printing laws would not occur until 1968 when Title 44 of 

the United States Code was recodifi ed.

188

A New House Administration Committee

It was also in 1946, of course, that the Committee on House 

Administration was established by the Legislative Reorganization Act, and the chairman and two members of that panel 

were made the House members of the Joint Committee on 

Printing.189 Th e Committee on House Administration exercised both legislative and oversight authority regarding the 

GPO and public printing policy. While it lacked any legislative authority, the Joint Committee on Printing functioned as 

a corporate board of directors for GPO operations—approving or disapproving, among other matters, requisitions of 

machinery, material, equipment, and supplies; contract and 

fi eld plant printing; and paper standards—and otherwise 

prescribed printing and binding regulations for almost all 

public printing. Later, in 1983, the authority of the Joint 

Committee on Printing to exercise broad remedial powers 

and issue regulations came under constitutional challenge 

(discussed below).

From its earliest days, one of the recurring activities of 

the Committee was to consider and act on resolutions for the 

production of congressional documents having educational or 

otherwise informative value. Such resolutions might authorize 

the production of an original study, history, or compilation, or 

printing of an updated version of an existing work. In the 80th 

Congress (1947–1948), such literature included studies of the 

tactics and strategy of communism and fascism, the eff ectiveness of anti-racketeering laws, economic concentration and 

monopoly, and housing in America. Assessments of fascism 

and communism continued to be documents of publication 

attention in the 81st Congress (1949–1950), as well as studies 

of American foreign policy, Korea, executive reorganization, 

and fair labor standards, and a biographical directory of all 

Members of Congress, including those who had served as 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 381

recently as through the previous Congress. Authorization 

to print and bind a revised edition of Cannon’s Procedure in 

the House of Representatives was reported and adopted by the 

House on August 21, 1950, and enacted into law on August 

30, 1950.190

Resolutions in the 82nd Congress (1951–1952) reported 

by the Committee and approved by the House authorized 

the printing of a compilation of federal laws pertaining to 

veterans for the period 1914-1950; documents and studies 

concerning Communist subversion and infi ltration; a review 

of congressional actions concerning housing from 1892 to 

1951; briefs and documents fi led with the Supreme Court 

concerning the steel seizure case;191 a complete collection of 

presidential inaugural addresses; the report of the Architect 

of the Capitol on remodeling the House chamber and reconstruction of the roofs and skylights over the House wing of 

the Capitol; and reports of the Comptroller General of the 

United States.

In 1953, for the fi rst time, the Committee authorized 

the printing of United States wall maps for use in the offi ces 

of members of the House and Senate.

Printing resolutions reported by the Committee and 

approved during the 84th Congress (1955–1956) included the 

production of additional copies of hearing transcripts concerning civil defense (held by a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations); medical, biology, and 

agriculture research using radioactive isotopes (held by the 

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy); and automation and 

technological change (held by a Senate committee).

The range of topics addressed in studies and reports 

approved for printing by the Committee and the House during the 86th Congress (1959–1960) included the Code of 

Ethics for government service, a space handbook on astronautics and its applications, a projected assessment of the 

next 10 years in space, patterns of espionage, an assessment 

of American foreign aid activities, and the organization and 

management of missile programs.

Th e topical diversity of the studies and reports approved 

for printing by the Committee and the House continued to 

expand with succeeding Congresses, refl ecting the broad 

interests, concerns, and policy pursuits of the committees of 

the House and the Senate. During the 90th Congress (1967–

1968), the Committee reported 49 resolutions authorizing 

the production of studies and reports as House documents. 

While this was a demanding task for the committee, considering and approving the publication of congressional studies 

and reports continues to be an important responsibility in 

furtherance of the informing function of Congress.

Th e Committee, since its inception, has also considered 

most general measures relating to printing. In mid-March 

1949, the Committee reported a bill amending the Printing 

Act of 1895 to regulate increasing printing costs by requiring 

that authorization for the printing of extra copies of a House 

or Senate document require a formal vote. Extra copies costing up to $1,200 would be authorized by either house by 

a vote on a simple resolution. If the cost were higher, extra 

copies would be authorized by a vote on a concurrent resolution (both houses approving). Should the resolution be selfappropriating, a joint resolution would be necessary (both 

houses approving and the President signing). Th e Committee 

on House Administration and the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration, when reporting such resolutions, 

were directed to provide an estimate of the probable cost of 

the proposed printing. If the cost did not exceed $700, the 

printing of additional copies could be ordered by the Joint 

Committee on Printing. Earlier, such resolutions had been 

referred to the House and Senate Committees on Printing, 

which had been abolished by the Legislative Reorganization 

Act of 1946. Th e legislation amending the Printing Act was 

approved by the House on March 14, 1949, and was enacted 

into law on April 19, 1949.192

Shortly thereafter, on June 15, the Committee 

reported, and the House passed, a bill providing that certain federal government printing, binding, and blankbook 

work could be contracted outside, but through, the GPO, 

if such action was approved by the Joint Committee on 

Printing. Th e bill was subsequently enacted into law on 

July 5, 1949.193
382 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

In 1951, the Committee considered and reported a Senate-passed measure amending a 1935 law pertaining to the 

publication of the Offi cial Register of the United States.194 Th e 

legislation set a defi nite time of publication—on or before 

December 31 of each year. The House passed the bill on 

August 20, and the proposal was enacted into law a week later 

on August 27, 1951.195

A decade later, the Committee reported and the House 

passed on June 29, 1961, a Senate-approved bill increasing distribution of the Congressional Record to the federal judiciary. 

Th e bill was enacted into law on July 11, 1961.

196

During the 96th Congress (1979–1980), the Committee 

undertook a reorganization of government printing arrangements in response to technological advances in dissemination 

and access to government information. Th is eff ort made use 

of a management study of the GPO conducted from March 

through October 1978 by the consulting fi rm of Coopers and 

Lybrand.197 It also built upon the work of an Ad Hoc Advisory 

Committee on Revision of Title 44, established by the Joint 

Committee on Printing in May 1978 to identify the major 

issues and policy questions involved in overhauling relevant 

chapters of Title 44 of the United States Code. Comments 

were solicited from federal agencies, private industry, trade 

associations, labor unions, the library community, and other 

interested groups. Th e Advisory Committee began deliberations on November 8, 1978, with hearings continuing for 

13 weeks. Th ese proceedings consumed nearly 2,000 pages 

of transcript records. In May 1979, the panel transmitted a 

report with fi ndings and policy issues to the Joint Committee 

on Printing.198

By June 1979, draft legislation recodifying and substantially revising nine of the fi rst 10 chapters of Title 44 

was completed and subsequently introduced in the House. 

After holding four days of hearings on this measure in July 

1979, the Committee considered a revised bill, marked it up 

with amendments, and reported it in January 1980. Both the 

Committee on Rules and the Committee on Government 

Operations claimed sequential jurisdiction on the proposal, 

which was further modified by these panels. No further 

action was taken on the legislation during the remainder of 

the 96th Congress.

Before the conclusion of the 96th Congress, however, 

the Committee considered a House bill transferring to the 

Superintendent of Documents responsibility for distributing 

federal government publications to foreign governments. 

Th e measure was reported on May 20, and was passed by 

the House on June 3, 1980, but no further action was taken.

During the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Contracts and Printing actively engaged 

in oversight of congressional printing and binding, as well as 

other matters pertaining to the cost of printing; the operations and management of the GPO; the administration of the 

federal depository libraries; materials printed in the Congressional Record; and authorization for printing Army Engineer 

reports. Included were cost-saving recommendations for the

Congressional Handbook, the Congressional Staff Journal, the 

House telephone directory, and other congressional publications. During the two-year period, the Subcommittee 

achieved a total cost savings of $877,319 for congressional 

printing. Th is was accomplished through review of authorization requests for printing matters and the production costs of 

House publications.

Th e Subcommittee also monitored labor negotiations 

between GPO management and labor unions, and worked 

with the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing concerning 

matters of general oversight regarding federal government 

printing activities. Subcommittee staff assessed proposals 

for the Joint Committee on Printing with special emphasis 

on the Joint Committee’s study of agency printing plants, 

the GPO proposal to close its bookstores, the Joint Committee on Printing’s proposal regarding automation of the 

Congressional Record index, and proposed uniform binding 

standards. Before the end of the 97th Congress, the Subcommittee additionally reviewed the Public Printer’s proposed 

furlough of GPO employees.

Task Force on the Printing Procurement Program.

Th e Subcommittee continued to monitor congressional printing, binding, and distribution, including related costs, during 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 383

the 98th Congress (1983–1984). It also continued to oversee 

GPO operations and management, federal depository library 

administration, and Congressional Record content. It was also 

in 1983 that the Joint Committee on Printing established a 

Task Force on the Printing Procurement Program composed 

of printing industry representatives, departmental printing 

offi cers, GPO procurement managers, and Joint Committee on Printing staff . Th e Joint Committee on Printing had 

determined three years earlier that, at that time, the GPO 

was procuring 70% of the federal government’s printing by 

contract from the private sector. In March 1980, the Joint 

Committee on Printing inaugurated a 15-month series of 

public meetings across the country to examine the eff ectiveness of this contract printing arrangement. As an extension 

of this activity, the Task Force was established to develop a 

set of recommendations for improving the GPO regional 

printing program. It held a series of 10 meetings, and issued 

a fi nal report to the Joint Committee on Printing on May 

18, 1984. Indicating “that the GPO Regional Printing and 

Procurement Offi ces [RPPO] should provide quality printing and distribution services for the Government through 

the private commercial sector in the most timely and costeff ective manner,” and “that, to the greatest extent possible, 

agency customer printing requirements originating in, or to 

be delivered in, a geographical region should be procured by 

the GPO-RPPO in that region unless insuffi cient competition is available to procure the products in a timely, qualitative, and cost-eff ective manner,” the Task Force off ered 17 

recommendations.199 Th e following description was off ered 

in the report:

Th e Task Force’s 17 recommendations deal with 

improving communications among departmental 

customers, the Government Printing Offi ce, and 

private printers from whom printing is procured; 

with improving ways for reviewing agencies printing needs; with improving GPO staff capabilities; 

with improving contract procedures; with shortening the time required between identifi cation of 

agency needs and letting the contract for procuring the needed work; with improving methods for 

ensuring contract compliance; and with providing opportunities for the hiring of personnel displaced by the closing of departmental fi eld printing 

plants.200

A Constitutional Challenge. In a June 23, 1983, ruling 

in INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court found adoption of a 

simple resolution by one house of Congress to veto executive 

action or policy unconstitutional because it was an exercise 

of legislative power which did not follow the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process: bicameral adoption and 

presentation of a bill or joint resolution to the President for 

signature or veto.201 Th e potential breadth of the Court’s ruling was signaled by its defi nition of a legislative act. Whether 

an action is an exercise of legislative power will depend on its 

purpose and eff ect. Th is ruling concluded that, where such 

action has “the purpose and eff ect of altering legal rights, 

duties and relations of persons . . . outside the legislative 

branch,” it must be eff ected through the constitutionallymandated lawmaking process.202 The broad reach of the 

Court’s rationale was shortly confi rmed by its summary affi rmance of two appeals court rulings invalidating one- and 

two-house vetoes of agency rulemaking, and was shortly recognized by the Department of Justice as an eff ective vehicle 

to challenge the very foundation of congressional control of 

federal printing.203

Until Chadha, the historic prerogative of Congress to 

control public printing through the Joint Committee on 

Printing was virtually unquestioned. Th e basic authority of 

the panel—to “use any measures it considers necessary to 

remedy neglect, delay, duplication, or waste in the public 

printing and binding and the distribution of Government 

publications”—is sweeping and unqualifi ed.

204 Its exercise 

extends beyond oversight and veto to affi rmative direction 

and control. Th e Joint Committee on Printing’s role had 

been likened to that of the board of directors of a corporation, 

and it assumed powers of commensurate scope without any 

serious challenge.205 Th is status was confi rmed by a decision 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
384 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Circuit announced shortly before Chadha.206

In sum, by 1983, the statutory scheme of Title 44, United 

States Code, as interpreted by the courts, GAO, and Attorney 

General, appeared to prescribe a predominant role for the 

Joint Committee on Printing with respect to the central tasks 

of satisfying the printing needs of Congress and the other 

branches of government, and making it possible for the broadest segment of the public to have direct access to government 

publications. In order to assure accomplishment of those 

tasks, Congress long ago had established the Joint Committee 

on Printing to oversee the process and invested it with ample 

power to enforce compliance, either directly pursuant to its 

remedial authority, or indirectly through its general managing agent, the Public Printer. Th e Chadha ruling resulted not 

only in uncertainty about the legal status of the Joint Committee on Printing’s remedial powers concerning government 

printing and its printing and binding regulations, but also 

questioning by the Department of Justice and the Offi ce of 

Management and Budget of the longstanding assumption 

that Congress, through the Joint Committee on Printing, 

had plenary authority to control public printing throughout 

the federal government.

During the 100th Congress (1987–1988), the Joint Committee on Printing held a June 17, 1987, meeting to consider, 

among other matters: (1) GPO sales of publications in electronic formats; (2) changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Joint Committee on Printing’s role; (3) advertising policy for the armed forces Stars and Stripes newspapers; 

and (4) the adoption of Committee rules regarding the hiring 

of staff . A year later, on June 29, 1988, the Joint Committee 

on Printing met to consider GPO labor-management matters 

and to review demonstration projects using electronic media 

to distribute information to depository libraries.

During the fi rst session of the 101st Congress (1989–

1990), Th e Committee’s Subcommittee on Procurement and 

Printing held hearings on May 23 and 24, and June 28 and 

29, 1989, to review the printing chapters of Title 44, United 

States Code, with a view to changes in electronic information 

format, distribution, and technology in the past decade.207

Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee held hearings on July 

19, 20, and 25 on a House resolution requiring the Architect 

of the Capitol to establish a voluntary program for recycling 

paper disposed of in the operation of the House of Representatives. Th e resolution was reported by the Committee and 

adopted by the House on August 1, 1989. Th e matter received 

further consideration by the Subcommittee the following year 

when hearings were held on August 1 and 2, 1990, on a bill 

to require Congress to purchase recycled paper and paper 

products to the greatest extent practicable for its own uses. 

No further action was taken on the legislation. Earlier in the 

year, on March 7 and 8, the Subcommittee held hearings on 

a bill to modify the activities and operations of the GPO in 

view of new information technologies, but no further action 

was taken on the proposal.208 On July 26 and 27, 1990, the 

Subcommittee held oversight hearings on the GPO general 

sales program.209

Th e Joint Committee on Printing began the 102nd Congress (1991–1992) with a January 24, 1991, oversight hearing on the GPO growing out of a September 1990 General 

Accounting Offi ce (GAO) report critical of GPO management,210 and focusing on an action plan prepared by the 

GPO in response to the GAO report.211 A few months later, 

on April 25, the Joint Committee on Printing held a hearing 

on government information as a public asset and an organizational meeting. Among those testifying at the hearing were 

Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, representatives 

of university libraries, and spokesmen from public interest 

groups.212 Shortly thereafter, on June 19 and July 24, the Joint 

Committee on Printing held hearings exploring the impact of 

new information technologies on, and their application and 

use by, the GPO.213

At the outset of the second session of the 102nd Congress, the Joint Committee on Printing held a January 30, 

1992, hearing reviewing the ongoing management of the 

GPO.214 Later in the year, the Committee on House Administration, together with the Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administration, jointly held a July 23 hearing on legislation 

requiring the GPO to expand eff orts to disseminate government information in electronic format by providing a single 

point of online computer access to federal publications and 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 385

databases. Th e Committee reported a bill on this matter on 

September 29, 1992, and it was approved by the House that 

same day, but no further action was taken before Congress 

adjourned sine die.215

A few months into the next Congress, the Committee, 

on April 1, 1993, reported a bill requiring the GPO to establish and maintain an online directory of federal publications 

stored in electronic format and to provide online computer 

access to the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. No 

further action, however, was taken on this measure. On May 

25, the Committee reported a Senate bill establishing in the 

GPO a means of enhancing electronic public access to a wide 

variety of federal electronic information, which the House 

approved that same day, clearing the bill for the President’s 

signature on June 8.216

On July 15, 1993, the Joint Committee on Printing held 

an oversight hearing on the Defense Printing Service, exploring concerns about duplication of eff ort, relative to the GPO, 

and high costs.217

The Congressional Record: Printing and Correction. Problems of cost and waste in public printing in the 

years prior to 1861 which led to the establishment of the 

GPO began to be repeated a decade later in the reporting 

and printing of congressional fl oor proceedings. Th e Congressional Globe, the offi cial gazette providing these proceedings, 

continued to be produced by Blair & Rives, contract printers, after the GPO had been mandated. With their contract 

due to expire on March 4, 1871, Blair & Rives experienced 

mounting criticism about the bulk and excessive expense of 

the Globe—production of the gazette during 1861–1871 had 

cost $744,117. When the Joint Committee on Printing sought 

alternative proposals for the production of the gazette, it was 

revealed that the GPO had the capacity to meet the need. 

With this discovery, provision was made in an appropriation 

bill to have the Congressional Printer produce the gazette 

until a private contractor was selected for the task.218 Th e 

likelihood of such a contract being awarded, however, was not 

particularly promising given the surrounding circumstances. 

Th us, on March 5, 1873, the GPO issued the fi rst edition of 

the Congressional Record, as the successor to the Globe had 

been denominated by the Joint Committee on Printing.219

Shaping the Modern. Th e Congressional Record, like 

the Congressional Globe before it, is not the offi cial record of 

the proceedings of the House and the Senate. Th at function 

is fulfi lled by the constitutionally mandated journal of each 

house of Congress.220 The Printing Act of 1895 specified 

that the Record “shall be substantially a verbatim report 

of proceedings” on the fl oor of the House and the Senate. 

Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Printing “shall have 

control of the arrangement and style of the Congressional Record.”221 From its inauguration in 1873, the Record 

underwent minor changes in its original format, such as 

occurred in 1904 when typesetting by machines replaced 

hand composition. A change in type dress in 1930, approved 

by the Joint Committee on Printing, “introduced an entirely 

new and more legible typeface, with greater readability and 

better typographic appearance.”222 Another typographical 

facelift for the Record was approved in 1941, resulting in “an 

improved appearance, increased readability, saved space, and 

its two columns were increased to three.”223 Th e Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1946 authorized and directed the Joint 

Committee on Printing “to provide for printing in the Daily 

Record the legislative program for the day, together with a 

list of congressional committee meetings and hearings, and 

the place of meeting and subject matter; and to cause a brief 

resume of congressional activities for the previous day to be 

incorporated in the Record, together with an index of its contents.”224 Th is “brief resume of congressional activities,” which 

became known as the Daily Digest, made its fi rst appearance 

in the Record of March 17, 1947.

225

In 1968, at the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, the existing Appendix to the Record, which had come to 

include legislative statements not delivered on the fl oor of either 

house of Congress, letters, newspaper and magazine articles, 

and similar such extraneous material off ered by Representatives 

and Senators, became the Extension of Remarks section. It 

continued to contain miscellaneous submissions, accepted for 

inclusion by unanimous consent, by largely House members. 

Contributors to the Extension of Remarks are listed alphabetically on the last page of the relevant issue of the Record. 
386 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Another practice in the House concerning the Record 

and requiring unanimous consent pertains to Members revising and extending their remarks. Th e practice was designed 

to allow the correction of grammatical and factual errors 

made in the course of speaking extemporaneously on the 

fl oor, and perhaps even to expedite fl oor debate by permitting brief remarks which could be later expanded into fuller 

speeches. Nonetheless, one congressional analyst has off ered 

the following observation.

That, however, has not been the only way the 

authority to “revise and extend” has been used. 

Instead, it has also been used as an open license for 

the Representative to insert anything he desired 

into the Congressional Record. Every member of the 

House, before he has begun to address the House, 

has automatically asked for this authority. Some of 

the Representatives never have exercised the extraordinary license thus granted, preferring to let their 

formal remarks stand in the Congressional Record as 

spoken. Most of the members, however, have taken 

advantage of this opportunity to cram the Record 

with speeches never spoken on the fl oor. Indeed, 

some Representatives who have rarely addressed 

their colleagues in formal debate have appeared 

in the Congressional Record to be the most talkative members of the House. Th ey have been free 

to use the Record for that purpose. Th e House has 

even encouraged it. After every major bill has been 

passed, the chairman of the sponsoring committee 

by custom has made a general request to allow all 

members of the House to add to the Congressional 

Record of the debate whatever they wished. “Mr. 

Speaker,” the committee chairman perfunctorily 

would say, “I ask unanimous consent that all members of the House be granted fi ve legislative days 

to revise and extend their remarks at this point in 

the Record.” Th at authority, automatically granted, 

has allowed any member of the House to insert in 

the Record any speech he composed as much as 

fi ve days after the House has voted; and on most 

important bills a dozen or more Representatives 

have taken advantage of the privilege. Th e practice 

thus indulged has made the Congressional Record

a questionable source for the historian, but it has 

served its primary purpose of economizing the 

House’s time.226

In 1978, several years after the above comment was published, the Joint Committee on Printing made a change in the 

format of the Record: large black dots or “bullets” (•) would 

be used to distinguish published, undelivered remarks, and 

thereby apprise the reader which statements in the Record were 

not part of live discussion on the fl oor.227 A few years later, in 

1985, the House abandoned the “bullet” symbol arrangement 

to identify statements or insertions which were not verbalized 

on the House fl oor and, in its place, began using a diff erent 

typeface to distinguish unspoken from spoken matter.228

Th is change arose in response to a controversy over debate 

on a disputed congressional election, reported in the May 1, 

1985, Record of House proceedings, which failed to delineate 

“spoken” from “inserted” remarks through the use of the 

prescribed “bullets.” A resolution was introduced on May 8 

authorizing the Committee on Rules to investigate the matter, report fi ndings, and recommend remedial action. After 

brief debate, the resolution was referred to the Committee 

on a 245-184 roll call vote.

229 Subsequently, on July 23, a 

resolution was introduced in the House with bipartisan support calling for the use of a diff erent typeface in the Record to 

distinguish “spoken” from “inserted” remarks.230 Referred to 

the Committee, it was favorably reported from Committee 

by unanimous voice vote on July 25,231 and was approved by 

the House by voice vote on July 30.232 Th e resolution affi rmed 

that the Congressional Record shall contain a substantially 

verbatim account of remarks actually spoken during the 

proceedings of the House and requested the Joint Committee 

on Printing to modify its rules to refl ect the use of a diff erent 

typeface to diff erentiate “spoken” from “inserted” remarks.

Th is reform successfully realized an attempt early in 

the previous year to require a House Committee on Rules 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 387

investigation of the accuracy of the Congressional Record and 

to determine if new procedures, including absolute verbatim 

transcripts, should be implemented. Th e resolution authorizing such an investigation was tabled on January 24, 1984.233

Shortly thereafter, the sponsor of the resolution and two 

other members of the House fi led a lawsuit demanding, as 

expressed in their complaint, “that the court order the Government Printing Offi ce, the Congressional reporters, and 

the Joint Committee on Printing to stop printing a corrupt 

Congressional Record.” In his May 30, 1984, dismissal of the 

case, U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell stated in part:

A lawsuit such as the present one needlessly “creates 

a distraction and forces Members [of Congress] to 

divert their time, energy, and attention from their 

legislative tasks to defend the litigation.” Serviceman’s Fund, 421 U.S. at 503, 95 S.Ct. At 1821. 

Plaintiff s’ remedy for their grievances lies not with 

the Court but with Congress itself. Congress is 

perfectly capable of enforcing against its members 

statutory and rule directives concerning how members’ views on public issues are to be reported in 

the Record. Th e separation of powers, of which the 

Speech or Debate Clause is one guardian, dictates 

that this task is both the sole responsibility and 

privilege of Congress.234

Th is dismissal was subsequently affi rmed on September 

13, 1985, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 

Circuit Judge Abner Mikva, a former member of the House, 

writing for the panel, concluded:

For 200 years, Congress has institutionally determined and redetermined that question of what kind 

of printed (and electronic) record should be kept of 

the proceedings of that body. It is most unlikely 

that any procedure has ever fully satisfi ed every 

member of the Congress or their constituents. Th is 

court cannot provide a second opinion on what is 

the best procedure. Notwithstanding the deference 

and esteem that is properly tendered to individual 

congressional actors, our deference and esteem for 

the institution as a whole and for the constitutional 

command that the institution be allowed to manage 

its own aff airs precludes us from even attempting a 

diagnosis of the problem.235

On February 7, 1990, a resolution was off ered for immediate consideration regarding the deletion from the February 

1 Record of “unparliamentary remarks.” As fl oor discussion 

ensued, the Speaker Pro Tempore noted “that the remarks 

mentioned in the resolution were removed from the Record 

pursuant to permission of the House to revise and extend and 

consistent with precedent and the Parliamentarian’s suggestion” that the remarks be stricken. According to the sponsor 

of the resolution, “the question before Members is this:”

We now have two records of the proceedings of the 

House of Representatives. One of them is printed in 

the Congressional Record. Th e other is on videotape 

for all Members to see. One record is, in fact, the 

accurate presentation of what goes on in the House 

of Representatives. Th e other is a record of what we 

wish we would have said, if only we had said it right. 

Th e problem is that those two do not match.236

Task Force on the Congressional Record. Th e resolution was adopted on a 373–30 roll call vote. It directed the 

Committee to “report to the House as soon as practicable its 

recommendations with respect to deletions from the Congressional Record pursuant to permission granted by the House to 

revise and extend remarks” in light of “a system of complete 

and unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of 

the proceedings of the House of Representatives.” Pursuant 

to the resolution, the chairman of the Committee appointed 

a task force, composed of three members of the Committee, 

to consider the propriety of the deletion in the February 

1 Record and the need to revise existing rules to make the 

Congressional Record adhere even more closely to the televised 

proceedings.237

Th e Task Force on the Congressional Record transmitted its fi nal report to the chairman of the Committee on 
388 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

House Administration on July 25, 1990. Th e report found 

that the February 1 deletion of “unparliamentary remarks” 

noted in the resolution prompting the creation of the task 

force “was not in accordance with the guidelines adopted in 

the 99th Congress.” Commenting, the report said: “Had the 

rules and precedents been properly observed, [the unparliamentary remarks] would have appeared in the Record, but 

could have been deleted by unanimous consent from the 

permanent Record. Had a point of order been made at the 

time of delivery,” it continued, “the words might have been 

deleted in the regular order.” Furthermore, said the report:

Because House rules provide that a Member shall 

not be held to answer nor subject to censure of the 

House for unparliamentary words spoken in debate 

if further debate or other business had intervened, 

the Task Force concluded that Members and staff 

need to be more aware of the rules and to pay closer 

attention to activities on the fl oor.238

Finally, the report recommended that the House Committee on Rules “consider amending House Rule XXXIV to 

elevate the current Joint Committee on Printing Guidelines 

for printing the Congressional Record, also included as a footnote to House Rule XXXIV, to a House Rule in their own 

right.” It specifi cally recommended the following:

(1) Th e Congressional Record should be a substantially verbatim account of the remarks made 

during Floor proceedings with corrections being 

technical, grammatical, or typographical in nature 

only, so as to make the process one more of verifi cation than revision.

(2) Deletion of unparliamentary remarks 

would be allowed only through consent or order 

of the House.

(3) Members would be subject to the authority 

of the House for any abuses of the leave to revise and 

extend, including any violation of this rule or any 

of the rules regarding the Congressional Record promulgated by the Joint Committee on Printing.239

Th ree years later, the Government Printing and Offi ce 

Electronic Information Enhancement Access Enhancement 

Act of 1993, became law. Th is act requires GPO to make an 

electronic version of “the Congressional Record, the Federal 

Register, and other appropriate publications distributed by the 

Superintendent of Documents available on line. In favorably 

reporting the measure, the Committee on House Administration believed “that public access to public electronic information will be greatly enhance by providing: (1) “an electronic 

system of access for dissemination of such information,” and 

(2) “increased coordination between other Federal agencies 

in developing standards and formats for dissemination of 

Federal public information stored electronically.”240

Subsequently, on January 4, 1995, when adopting the 

rules of the House for the 103rd Congress, these specifi c recommendations were adopted in Section 213 of the resolution 

prescribing the new rules.241 Th ey constitute clause 8 of House 

Rule XVII.

More recently, the chairman of the Committee off ered 

legislation during the 108th Congress (2003–2004) transferring to the Public Printer authority over individuals responsible for preparing Congressional Record indexes. Five days 

after introducing this legislation, which was referred to the 

Committee, he moved its consideration under a suspension 

of the rules and the House approved it on October 7. Th e 

Senate passed the measure on October 15, clearing it for the 

President’s signature on October 29, 2003.242

In the 111th Congress (2009–2010), the Joint Committee 

on Printing directed the Government Printing Offi ce to work 

with the Library of Congress to digitize the Congressional 

Record from 1873 to the present and make it available online, 

and in the 112th Congress (2011–2012) formerly altered the 

cover of the Congressional Record to include and give greater 

attention to the www.CongressionalRecord.gov moniker.

During the 112th Congress (2011–2012), the Committee on House Administration and the Joint Committee on 

Printing renewed its focus on modernizing the congressional 

printing process for the internet age while reducing taxpayer 

costs. In May 2011, the Subcommittee on Oversight held a 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 389

hearing entitled, “GPO—Issues and Challenges: How Will 

GPO Transition to the Future?” that revealed that GPO had 

made “tremendous strides under the leadership” of William 

Boarman. Prior to his appointment on January 3, 2011, GPO 

was in “dire fi nancial trouble.” “Recent public printers had 

saddled GPO with large and growing overhead costs” by hiring senior managers who sanctioned excessive travel expenses, 

and failed to collect millions owed by GPO customers. In 

addressing these issues, Mr. Boarman trimmed $15 million 

from the annual spending plan submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) and $5 million from its FY2012 

appropriations request. GPO has also invigorated eff orts to 

collect overdue accounts, leased thousands of square feet of 

underutilized space, redoubling eff orts to expand its market 

position for security related documents; and worked with the 

Committee to improve the distribution and dissemination of 

congressional materials in both printed and electronic form.243

A month later, in June 2011, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight held a hearing entitled, “Modernizing Information 

Delivery in the House,” where it received testimony on proposals to reforms and streamline congressional printing and document production. Subcommittee Chairman Phil Gingrey, in 

his opening remarks, told those assembled that “Central and 

integral to our oversight responsibility is ensuring effi ciency 

and transparency in how we, the House, create and disseminate legislative information. Today, we are interested in learning from our witnesses about how we can improve information 

delivery in the House, how we can improve the way we create 

and distribute legislative documents, and how we reduce costs 

and increase transparency. As we approach the 20th anniversary of the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement 

Act of 1993,” Chairman Gingrey went on to say, “Now is the 

time to revaluate and revisit Title 44, the statute governing 

our paper-based requirements,” and “bring our information 

delivery system into this 21st century.”244

Also in the fi rst session of the 112th Congress, the Committee on House Administration worked with GPO to create 

a survey whereby individual member offi ces could opt out 

of receiving certain printed daily and permanent congressional publications that are available online. Th e Committee 

continued to perform oversight over ways to modernize the 

business model of the GPO in order to cut agency costs and 

increase effi ciency.245 As a part of this strategy, the Committee on House Administration and the Joint Committee on 

Printing Chairman, Representative Gregg Harper, directed 

the creation of unique online addresses and applications 

to increase the digital presence of Congressional publications for constituents and the Congressional community. 

As a result, the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) www.

CongressionalDirectory.gov, www.CongressionalRecord.

gov, www.HouseCalendar.gov, and www.USCode.gov were 

launched. Additionally, the Committee worked with the 

GPO to release its fi rst mobile Web application (app). Th e 

free Mobile Member Guide app features a Congressional 

pictorial directory and information on every Member of the 

112th Congress.

Congressional Directory. Th e Joint Committee on 

Printing also has long managed the compilation and publication of the Congressional Directory, the offi cial almanac of 

Congress. Early predecessors of the modern Directory, compiled and produced in very small numbers by private printers, 

were little more than lists of House and Senate Members. 

Published as broadsides and pamphlets, they were viewed 

as temporary documents to be discarded at the end of each 

Congress or when a new replacement was issued. In 1847, 

the Directory for the fi rst session of the 30th Congress bore 

on its title page the following inscription: “Compiled and 

Published for the Use of Congress by the Postmaster of the 

House of Representatives.” It “is generally considered to be 

the initial offi cial edition because it was the fi rst to be ordered 

and paid for by Congress.”246 Other developments in the 

evolution of the Directory were evident with the 1867 edition, 

produced for the fi rst session of the 40th Congress. Th e title 

page indicated that it had been compiled by the clerk of the 

Senate Committee on Printing, Ben Perley Poore, and that, 

for the fi rst time, it had been printed by the GPO. On the 

reverse side of the title page was a copyright notice and the 

following explanation:
390 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Th is copyright has been secured, by direction of 

the Joint Committee on Public Printing, to prevent 

the issue of pirated editions (incorrect or imperfect) 

for sale. Th e newspaper press is welcome to copy 

so much of the Directory as may be desirable, but 

anyone who may republish the work for sale will be 

liable to prosecution for infringement of the copyright. Copies of this and of subsequent editions can 

be ordered at the Public Printing Offi ce on payment 

of the cost of printing.247

Poore continued to compile the Directory until his death 

in May 1887. He was succeeded by W. H. Michael, the new 

clerk of the Senate Committee on Printing, who was identifi ed on the title page of the Directory for the fi rst session of 

the 50th Congress—his initial edition of the document—as 

“Editor and Compiler.” Michael compiled the Directory, 

which continued to be copyrighted, until the early months 

of 1893, when, upon his death, Francis M. Cox, as the new 

clerk of the Senate Committee on Printing, assumed the task. 

Th e copyright notice disappeared from the initial edition of 

the Directory for 1894 and never reappeared.248 Editions for 

1894–1896 and for 1900 and thereafter acknowledged on, 

or the reverse side of the title page, that the Directory was 

compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on 

Printing. Th e Directory continues to be produced under the 

guidance of the Joint Committee on Printing, and in the 112th

Congress, in an eff ort to provide greater accessibility to the 

publication, the Joint Committee on Printing, created the 

Uniform Resource Locator www.CongressionalDirectory.

gov. Th e site, which is administered by the GPO, currently 

hosts electronic versions of the Congressional Directory from 

the 105th Congress to the present.

Many Facets of Records Management

Proper records management within the Federal departments 

and agencies has long been a Congressional concern. At the 

outset of the Federal government in 1789, Congress provided 

for the preservation of State records and papers249 and for 

the maintenance of offi cial fi les in the new departments.250

Among the earliest congressional investigations was one 

conducted in 1810 by a House committee “to Inquire into 

the State of the Ancient Public Records and Archives of the 

United States.”251 Th ere was, however, no law providing for 

the destruction of valueless papers, the result being that “both 

these and the valuable ones were uniformly preserved”; shortly 

after the conclusion of the Civil War, “the accumulation of 

noncurrent records in the executive departments began to 

force attention to the question of their disposition.”252

Joint Committee on the Disposition of Executive 

Papers. By one estimate, “between 1861 and 1916, the accumulated total of Federal records soared from 108,000 to 

1,031,000 cubic feet.”253 Provision was made in appropriation 

Acts of 1881 and 1882 for the Postmaster General and the 

Secretary of the Treasury, respectively, to sell as waste paper 

accumulated fi les of papers “that are not needed in the transaction of current business and have no permanent value or 

historical interest,” the proceeds of such sales to be paid into 

the Treasury.254 It has been proff ered that these provisions 

were the fi rst to prescribe the retention-disposal standards of 

records having or not having permanent value or historical 

interest.255 Th e fi rst government-wide statute authorizing 

and providing for the disposition of useless papers in the 

executive departments was enacted in 1889.256 It established 

the bipartisan, bicameral, four-member Joint Committee on 

the Disposition of Executive Papers to review reports by the 

heads of the departments concerning useless papers and to 

make recommendations as to the disposition of such papers. 

Amended in 1895 to include accumulated departmental fi les 

and papers in storage in buildings other than those occupied 

by the custodial departments disposing of them,257 the “Act 

of 1889 remained the principal statute under which records 

were destroyed until the passage of the National Archives Act 

of 1934.”258 Th is latter statute and its various amendments 

and embellishments since 1934 have been codifi ed in several 

chapters of Title 44 of the United States Code.

Under the 1889 statute, executive entities prepared lists 

of useless papers and submitted them, together with explaOVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 391

nations and justifi cations for their disposal, to either house 

of Congress. Th e lists were reviewed by the Joint Committee, which issued a report authorizing the destruction of the 

papers in the lists. After 1920, the lists, accompanying documents, and the destruction authorization were all published 

in a single House report. Between 1912 and 1935, the lists of 

useless papers, before being submitted to the House or the 

Senate, were reviewed by the Librarian of Congress with a 

view to preserving those deemed to be of historical interest. 

In 1935, the newly established Archivist of the United States 

assumed this review role.259

In the months immediately after the National Archives 

became fully operational, the Archivist introduced government-wide use of a so-called disposal schedule, which had 

been initially introduced at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

in late 1889, and was refi ned and eff ectively used at the Forest 

Service in the 1920s. Th e IRS schedule “listed only records 

that were to be disposed of, was arranged according to form 

number, and indicated under the recommendation the period 

of time the records that were to be kept before disposal or some 

other disposition.”260 Th e records disposal schedule devised, 

by the National Archives foresaw the scheduling of groups of 

records from the moment of their creation (using time intervals), and included types of records other than forms.

Consolidated Jurisdiction. Shortly after the turn of the 

20th century, the House and Senate each created, for purposes 

of considering legislation, a Committee on the Disposition 

of Executive Papers, composed of its Members on the Joint 

Committee.261 When the Committee on House Administration was established by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946, it was vested with jurisdiction for legislation “relating to 

the disposition of useless executive papers.”262 Th ereafter, the 

two House members of the Joint Committee were appointed 

from senior members—one from the majority and one from 

the minority—of the committee. In 1970, Congress abolished the Joint Committee on the Disposition of Executive 

Papers, as it was called at the time, and vested the panel’s 

review and records disposal authority in the Administrator of General Services, the Federal Government’s property 

manager.263 At the time, the National Archives was a subunit 

of the Administrator’s General Services Administration.264

Th is authority and other records management responsibilities 

were transferred to the Archivist in 1984 when the National 

Archives was returned to its former status as an independent 

agency of the executive branch.265

Other actions taken by the Committee regarding records 

management included directing the introduction of a privileged resolution authorizing the Clerk of the House to permit 

any unpublished records of the House, which have been 

in existence for not less than 50 years, transferred to the 

National Archives for storage, to be made available for use, 

unless he determines that such use would be detrimental 

to the public interest. At the time, only House documents 

previously printed or made public by order of the House 

were open for public inspection. Without debate or dissent, 

the resolution was adopted on June 16, 1953 and remained 

governing policy until 1989.266

Th e Committee was authorized by the adoption of a 

House resolution on July 5, 1955, to study federally-operated 

printing services and Government paperwork in general.267

Federal paperwork had long been a major point of departure for criticism by some in the private sector and some 

in Government. Th e general consensus was that much of 

the complexity of administrative paperwork resulted from 

uncontrolled and uncoordinated forms. Th e Subcommittee 

on Printing of the Committee on House Administration, 

acting as the Special Subcommittee to Study Federal Printing 

and Paperwork, carried out the mandate of the resolution. 

Th e Subcommittee held four days of hearings in 1956 to 

consider the Government’s management of paperwork, as 

well as the sale and distribution of Government publications. 

Witnesses included offi cials of the Bureau of the Budget, the 

General Accounting Offi ce, and the General Services Administration. Information was also received from the heads of 

various departments and agencies who responded to a letter 

of inquiry from the Subcommittee.268

Th e Subcommittee’s fi ndings were provided in a comprehensive two-part report, the fi rst portion of which was 
392 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

released on July 26, 1956. It presented fi ndings concerning 

department and agency forms, standard government forms, 

and standard accounting forms as prescribed by the Comptroller General. Th e need for proper management of paperwork was documented and examples of paperwork reduction 

were off ered.269 Th e second portion of the report, released 

January 2, 1957, dealt with publication practices of Congress 

and government departments and agencies and focused on 

distribution procedures. Conditions in need of rehabilitation, 

primarily due to outmoded laws, were described. Unsatisfactory practices concerning the distribution of government 

publications to depository libraries were examined. Th e report 

also directed attention to the distribution of standard forms 

and the extent to which some agencies supplied microfi lm or 

photographic prints of publications to individuals or other 

government agencies.270

At the outset of the 85th Congress (1957–1958), the Committee established a Special Subcommittee to Study Federal 

Printing and Paperwork to continue the work of its Subcommittee on Printing, which remained operative. During the fi rst 

session, the Public Documents Committee of the American 

Library Association assisted the Subcommittee with its assessment of an equitable and timely distribution of government 

documents to depository libraries. Questionnaires were sent 

to more than 1,000 depository and non-depository libraries 

throughout the United States. Field hearings were held in 

Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Boston during 

October 1957 on remedial legislation to revise laws relating 

to the distribution of government publications to depository 

libraries. Letters from the Subcommittee to 412 government 

departments and agencies solicited additional views on the 

proposed legislation, and an additional hearing on the bill was 

held in Washington, DC, on June 19, 1958. Shortly thereafter, 

a revised reform proposal was introduced in the House and 

was referred to the Committee, where it was considered and 

reported on July 9. Although the House approved the measure 

on July 21, 1958, the Senate did not act on it.271

On another matter, hearings were held on June 5, 1957, 

on a joint resolution to encourage and foster the cooperation of 

private and State historical groups with the National Historical 

Publications Commission. Statutorily established in 1934 and 

affi liated with the National Archives, the Commission was 

vested with responsibility to cooperate with, and encourage, 

Federal, State, and local government agencies and nongovernmental institutions, societies, and individuals to collect, 

preserve, and publish documents considered important for 

an understanding of the history of the United States.272 Th e 

Commission developed a national program to encourage the 

publication of the basic source materials of American history 

through the cooperative eff orts or public and private organizations. Th e joint resolution supported the program and encouraged State offi cials, State historical commissions and archival 

agencies, as well as appropriate libraries, historical societies, 

colleges and universities, business corporations, foundations, 

and civic and other non-profi t organizations to cooperate with 

the Commission in fulfi llment of its mission. Among those 

testifying in support of the measure at a June 5, 1957, hearing 

were Felix Frankfurter, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; 

Julian P. Boyd, editor of Th e Papers of Th omas Jeff erson; Lyman 

H. Butterfi eld, editor-in-chief for the Adams papers project; 

and L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress.273

Simultaneously, however, there was under consideration, 

at this time, a Senate concurrent resolution supporting implementation of proposals by the National Historical Publications Commission to publish, as government documents, 

historical studies of the United States, to be available to the 

public. Th e Senate approved this measure on June 26, 1957, 

and it was transmitted to the House, where it was referred to 

the Committee. Subsequently, the Committee reported the 

Senate concurrent resolution in lieu of the counterpart House 

proposal, and the House adopted it on August 22, 1957.274

Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation. Two decades later, the Committee became involved 

in a records management issue arising from the so-called 

Watergate incident and related developments. 

It was revealed by President Ford, in September 1974, 

that former President Nixon executed an agreement with 

the Administrator of General Services, Arthur F. Sampson, 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 393

to assert custody over his Presidential papers and records.275

At a minimum, some feared that these documents would be 

destroyed or otherwise unavailable to prosecutors pursuing 

charges against individuals involved in so-called Watergate 

misdeeds.

At the time, it had been long-standing practice—dating 

back to George Washington—that Presidents departing from 

offi ce took their offi cial papers with them as personal property 

to do with them as they wished. Some former Presidents—

Rutherford B. Hayes, Herbert C. Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon 

B. Johnson—had placed their papers in special libraries for 

public use, but there was no obligation or requirement for 

successors to follow this course of action.

A number of bills were introduced during the closing 

months of 1974 proposing solutions to the problem of the 

disposition of Presidential papers and the preservation of the 

Nixon Presidential materials, including his tape recorded 

conversations. Th e Subcommittee on Printing held hearings 

on September 30 and October 4, 1974 on those measures 

referred to the Committee on House Administration.276

Among them was a Senate bill, the Presidential Recordings 

and Materials Preservation Act, which authorized the Federal 

Government to protect and preserve tape recordings of conversations and papers of President Nixon made and written 

during his Presidential tenure. Statements advocating preservation of presidential materials were off ered by Members 

of Congress, archivists, scholars, and representatives of the 

American Historical Association. Th e Senate bill, which had 

been approved by the other body on October 4, was reported 

by the Committee on November 27, 1974.277

In its report, the Committee stated that Congress was 

constitutionally empowered to dispose of documents of Federal offi cials, and that the federal government was authorized to take protective custody of materials if necessary for 

the continuing use by the Government when in the public 

interest. As reported, the Senate bill contained a committee 

amendment creating a 17-member National Study Commission on Records and Documents of Federal Offi cials to study 

the disposition of the papers of Federal offi cials. Th e commission was directed to report by March 31, 1976. Th e report 

noted that, despite overriding public interest in preserving 

and providing appropriate access to presidential papers, the 

Nixon-Sampson agreement, if implemented, could limit 

access to these records and result in the destruction of a substantial portion of them. Th e report also noted that former 

President Nixon had brought suit in U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia to obtain control of his papers 

and that a temporary restraining order had been issued on 

October 22, 1974, preventing the Ford administration from 

giving Nixon custody of the material. On November 11, 

1974, several Members of Congress, including the chairman 

of the Committee on House Administration, fi led an amici 

curiae brief urging the court to extend the temporary restraining order until Congress considered appropriate legislation.

Th e House considered the Senate bill, as amended, under 

a suspension of the rules on December 3 and approved the 

measure. On December 9, the Senate agreed to the House 

amendments with additional technical amendments. Th at 

same day, the House concurred in the Senate technical 

amendments, enacting it into law.

278

Th ereafter, the Subcommittee on Printing held hearings 

on May 22 and June 3, 1975, on controversial proposed regulations of the General Services Administration to implement 

the fi rst title of the Presidential Recordings and Materials 

Preservation Act concerning the public availability of the 

Nixon materials. Representatives from the American Civil 

Liberties Union, the American Historical Association, the 

American Political Science Association, and other organizations criticized the fi nal review authority of the General 

Services Administration and the complexity of the review 

process. Some representatives opposed restrictions based 

on what was considered to be an inadequate defi nition of 

national security. The archivist of the United States, the 

administrator of General Services, and other General Services administration offi cials testifi ed on the criteria used 

to determine release to the public, restriction, or return of 

former President Nixon’s Presidential materials. Th e archival 
394 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

review process was explained, and responses were made to 

criticisms of regulations restricting access to materials and the 

Administrator’s fi nal review authority. Th e General Services 

Administration also off ered estimates of the time and the 

cost of review and release of the Nixon tapes and papers.279

As a result of the hearings, the Committee considered 

a resolution to disapprove certain portions of the proposed 

General Services Administration regulations. Th e resolution 

was reported on October 9, 1975, but by that time the Senate, on September 11, had already adopted its own resolution 

of disapproval.280 Consequently, the House took no further 

action. Th e General Services Administration submitted a second set of regulations on October 15, 1975, but, on January 

21, 1976, sought to withdraw them, pending a review of their 

constitutionality. Both the House and the Senate objected to 

the withdrawal. Subsequently, the Senate, on April 8, 1976, 

adopted a resolution disapproving seven of the October 15 

regulations. Th e Administrator of General Services submitted a third set of regulations on April 13, but the chairman 

of the House Subcommittee on Printing and the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on 

Government Operations determined that only those new 

regulations submitted on April 12, 1976, covering the seven 

regulations that had been disapproved were properly before 

Congress for review. A House resolution disapproving six of 

the April 13 regulations was reported on September 9 and was 

adopted by the House on September 14, 1976.281

In other action related to the Presidential Recordings 

and Materials Preservation Act, the Committee considered 

a bill which extended the deadline for the fi nal report of the 

National Study Commission on Records and Documents of 

Federal Offi cials and reported it on March 29. Two days later, 

the measure was tabled, and a Senate counterpart bill was 

passed in lieu, and became law on April 11, 1976.282

Preserving Presidential Records. Consisting of 17 

members and chaired by former Attorney General Herbert 

Brownell,283 the National Study Commission on Records and 

Documents issued its fi nal report in March 1977.284 Responding partly to some of the Commission’s recommendations, 

several bills to establish the future public ownership of Presidential records and prescribe procedures governing the preservation and public availability of such materials at the end of 

each Chief Executive’s tenure were introduced in the House 

early in 1978. Referred jointly to the Committee on House 

Administration and the Committee on Government Operations (now Government Reform), they were given hearings by 

a subcommittee of the latter panel in February and March. 

As a consequence of these hearings and other discussions, a 

clean bill incorporating various subcommittee refi nements and 

changes was introduced on July 17, 1978. Th e bill was reported 

on August 14 with technical amendments by the Committee 

on Government Operations. Consideration of the measure 

by the Committee on House Administration was vacated, 

and the bill was approved by the House under a suspension 

of the rules on October 10. Th e Senate considered the Housepassed bill, as amended, on October 13, and after adopting a 

technical and clarifying amendment, approved the measure. 

Th e House concurred in this modifi cation the next day, and 

the measure was signed into law on November 4, 1978.285 Th e 

resulting statute carefully defi ned “Presidential records,” and 

specifi ed that all such materials created on or after January 20, 

1981, were subject to its provisions. Th e new law eff ectively 

declared Presidential records to be Federal property that was 

to remain under the custody and control of the Archivist of the 

United States when each incumbent President left the White 

House. Jimmy Carter was the last occupant of the Oval Offi ce 

who could freely take away his records and papers.

It was also in 1978 that the Committee considered and 

reported on June 5, a Senate bill amending Title 44 of the 

United States Code to require mandatory, rather than permissive, application of time schedules for the disposal of routine 

government agency records in such areas as personnel, payroll, and procurement. Retention of such records had been 

determined by the Committee to be costly in terms of storage 

space, and agencies commonly retained such records long 

after their usefulness was ended. Th e measure was reported 

on June 5, passed the House on September 26, and was subsequently enacted into law on October 10, 1978.

286
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 395

House Committee Records Management. Th e following year, the Committee completed a study of the management of records and papers of House committees. Consequently, in November 1979, the Committee published and 

printed, Committee Records Guidelines: Guidelines for Standing 

and Select Committees in the Preparation, Filing, Archiving, 

and Disposal of Committee Records.287 Th is development of 

guidelines was a major step in improving procedures for the 

management of Committee fi les. Th e Committee maintained 

a comprehensive review of House rules and regulations concerning records in order to update the directives issued by the 

Committee on House Administration on the subject.

Depository Libraries. One of the early pieces of legislation referred to the Committee on House Administration, was 

a 1948 proposal to authorize the designation of a public library 

in each city with a population of 100,000 or more as a depository for government documents. Th e Depository Library Program dated to 1813 with regard to congressional materials,288

and was extended in 1857 to include other federal literature.289

Libraries selected to serve as depositories received copies of 

government documents at no charge and were expected to 

make them available for public use. Initially, each Representative could designate a depository in his or her district, and 

each Senator could designate two such facilities in his or her 

State. Other libraries granted depository status included those 

of federal executive departments, offi cial State and territorial 

facilities, and those of land-grant colleges. Th e Committee took 

no action on the 1948 measure to expand the system.

A decade late, in 1959, the Committee scrutinized the 

problems of the depository libraries when it considered a bill 

providing for better and more selective distribution of government publications, adjustment of the number of depositories, disposal of outmoded publications by depositories, 

establishment of regional depository libraries, and use of 

microfacsimile copies of government publications. Although 

the measure was reported and passed the House on March 

16, 1959, no further action was taken.290

Th ree years later, however, the eff ort to reduce the cost 

of Federal printing by reducing the number of Government 

publications and by requiring greater selectivity in the distribution of such publications to the depository libraries was 

successful. On July 17, 1961, the Committee approved the 

Depository Libraries Act of 1962, which provided for more 

effi cient administration of the national depository library 

program. Th e legislation amended the laws relating to depository libraries in a manner similar to bills passed by the House 

during the 85th and 86th Congresses (1967–1960) not acted on 

by the Senate. Th e bill provided for an increase in the number 

of depository libraries and improved conditions relating to 

the selection, supply, retention, and disposal of government 

publications furnished to the depositories.291 Reported on July 

17, 1961, and passed by the House on August 22, the legislation was enacted into law on August 9, 1962.292

Also in 1972, the Committee considered, and reported 

on June 29, a Senate-passed bill amending Title 44 of the 

United States Code to authorize the Public Printer to designate the highest appellate court in each State as a depository 

library. Passed by the House on July 31, the measure became 

law on August 10, 1972.293

On September 30, 1977, the Committee reported legislation amending Title 44 of the United States Code to designate libraries of accredited law schools as depositories, which 

enabled these institutions to receive off ered government publications without charge. Approved by the House on October 

25, 1977, the bill was amended in the Senate before passage. 

With House agreement to the Senate amendments secured, 

the proposal was enacted into law on April 17, 1978.294

Five years later, in May 1983, that the Joint Committee 

on Printing established an Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Data Bases, 

which was asked to determine: (1) What and how much 

Federal Government information is in electronic format; 

(2) if depository libraries have the ability to access the new 

formats; and (3) what are the costs and benefi ts of providing information in electronic format. In addition to its own 

information gathering, analyses, and deliberations, the 

ad hoc panel was assisted by a February 1984 workshop, 

conducted for it by the Offi ce of Technology Assessment 
396 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service 

and the General Accounting Offi ce. A report to the Joint 

Committee on Printing, with fi ndings and recommendations, was issued later in the year.295 A primary proposal was 

that the Joint Committee on Printing and Superintendent 

of Documents, together, initiate a pilot program enabling 

depository libraries to access federal information electronically and provide it to the general public without charge.

United States Botanic Garden

Origins and Background

Th e creation of the United States Botanic Garden at the foot 

of Capitol Hill was the result of congressional interest in 

documenting, preserving, and cultivating a collection of plant 

specimens brought to the United States by a Naval survey 

and exploration team from the Pacifi c and South Seas in 

June 1842.296 Th e “Wilkes Expedition” consisted of six Navy 

vessels and was led by Naval Lieutenant Charles Wilkes and 

included, among others, William Brackenridge, a horticulturist and botanist, and Charles Pickering, a naturalist. 

Within two months of the expedition’s return, Congress, 

on August 26, 1842, approved legislation directing that the 

expedition’s fi ndings be published under the “supervision and 

direction” of the Joint Committee on the Library. Th e Joint 

Committee was further directed by the Act to oversee the 

expedition’s collection of “objects of natural history” in “the 

upper room of the Patent Offi ce,” and to appoint an individual 

to “care” for them.297 Two years later, funds were appropriated 

to “defray the expenses of taking care of and preserving the 

botanical and horticultural specimens brought home by the 

exploring expedition, and for the salary of the keeper of, and 

enlarging the greenhouse under the direction and control” 

of the Joint Committee on the Library.298 In the following 

years, the Joint Committee exercised its authority by employing laborers, setting and adjusting their salaries, and serving as 

“keeper” of the greenhouses.299 Th ese responsibilities served as 

the basis for Joint Committee’s being given jurisdiction over the 

greenhouses containing the Wilkes collection, which Congress 

offi cially named the United States Botanic Garden in 1856.300

The Joint Committee’s prominence in the Garden’s 

management and oversight was recognized by the Senate 

Agriculture Committee in 1908 during discussions on a possible transfer of authority to the Department of Agriculture:

. . . the successive appropriations for the enlargement and maintenance of the Botanic Garden and 

greenhouses have continued to be disbursed under 

the direction of the [Joint Committee on the Library 

since 1842]. Th e salaries of the superintendent, the 

assistant superintendent, and the laborers, not having been fi xed by any law or regulations of Congress, 

the disbursements of the various appropriations have 

been left to the discretion of the Joint Library Committee, and in fact that committee has been supreme 

in all matters relating to the institution.301

Although other proposals were off ered to change jurisdiction over the Botanic Garden following 1908, none succeeded. Records indicate that there was an unsuccessful eff ort 

in 1914 to required the Joint Committee to share its jurisdiction with the government of the District of Columbia.302

Also, in 1914, the Chairman of the House Committee on 

the Library introduced legislation transferring jurisdiction 

from the Joint Committee to the Secretary of Agriculture in 

order to more adequately “prevent the spreading of disease,” 

reduce costs, and take advantage of the botanical expertise of 

scientists employed by the Department:

Some of the arguments favoring transfer to the 

Department of Agriculture have been to prevent 

the spreading of disease by distribution of plants 

under the congressional allotment, to reduce costs 

of operations, to make available the scientifi c talent 

the Department could furnish, etc. Some of the 

arguments against its transfer have been the danger 

of the garden losing its identity, the handicaps it 

might suff er in point of jurisdiction by being a small 

unit of a large department, and the upsetting of a 

very old tradition.303
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 397

Although this proposal was never carried forward, 20 

years later, in 1934, the House Committee on the Library 

issued a committee report on the future of the Garden, in 

which it called again for the Garden’s transfer to the Department of Agriculture, or an independent board. In either case, 

the Joint Committee would have retained legislative jurisdiction. Th e House Library Committee further recommended 

that Congress select an entity, perhaps an independent board, 

to coordinate botanical-related activities of the Department 

of Agriculture, the Library of Congress (collection of botanical books), the Smithsonian, the Bureau of Plant Industry, 

and various non-federal entities.304

While no further action was taken on the 1934 proposals, Congress took a major step later in the year to provide 

support to the Joint Committee by assigning responsibility 

for the day-to-day operations of the Garden to the Architect 

of the Capitol (AOC). While the AOC assumed the role of 

acting director on July 3, 1934,305 (and continues in that role 

today), the Joint Committee retained its general oversight and 

legislative authority.

Role of the Committee 

Th e Committee on House Administration was given jurisdiction over the Botanic Garden in the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, which contained the new Rules of the House 

regarding committee jurisdictions. Rule X, clause 1 (j)(J) 

stated: 

[Th e] Committee on House Administration . . . [has 

jurisdiction over] matters relating to the Library of 

Congress and the House Library; statuary and pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of art for the 

Capitol; the Botanic Gardens; management of the 

Library of Congress; purchase of books and manuscripts; erection of monuments to the memory of 

individuals.306

Rules language regarding the Botanic Garden have 

remained unchanged, and are contained currently in Rule 

X, clause 1(j)(1). Even during consideration of major revisions 

in House committee jurisdictions in 1974, the House did not 

consider changing the Committee’s oversight authority.307

Limited jurisdiction is shared with the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, which, in Rule X, clause 

1(r)(1), gives that Committee responsibility for “Construction 

or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of buildings and 

grounds of the Botanic Garden.”308

Since 1947, however, the Committee has exercised its 

authority primarily through its representation on the Joint 

Committee on the Library. Research indicates the Committee has not played a particularly active oversight role independently or through its membership on the Joint Committee. 

Further, records show the Joint Committee relinquished 

much of its oversight role to the House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch Appropriations of the Committees on Appropriations.309 Representative Dan Miller of 

Florida referred to this change during a hearing by the House 

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations on the 

FY1996 Botanic Garden budget request of the Architect of 

the Capitol, George White:

Mr. Miller. Maybe we are better to have a diff erent 

type of [Botanic Garden] . . . someplace else that 

would accomplish the same goal . . . But who asks 

that question? Who raises it?

Mr. White. Th at question normally comes out of a 

Committee like this [House Committee on Appropriations] where funding is needed. I must say that 

there is very little activity of the Joint Committee on the Library with regard to oversight as an 

authorizing entity. And every year this Committee 

asks those questions, and then I think it would be 

this committee’s prerogative to carry it further, if 

you wished. 

During further consideration of the Garden’s FY1996 

funding requests, others on the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations questioned the role of the Garden. 

Representative Ron C. Packard of California, Chairman of the 

House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, 

requested Architect of the Capitol George White to justify the 
398 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

need for a Botanic Garden, specifi cally one operated by Congress.310 Th e question arose during a hearing on the proposed 

budget of the Architect of the Capitol, which contained a 200% 

increase in funds for the Garden, primarily for renovations. 

Some Subcommittee members questioned the amount of the 

request at a time when other legislative branch programs were 

facing signifi cant cuts.

Th e Architect responded in a memorandum which contained: (1) Justifi cations for maintaining the Botanic Garden 

within the legislative branch; (2) issues for the House to consider before transferring the Garden to another agency; and 

(3) a discussion on possible privatization of the Garden.311

Similar concerns about the Garden surfaced during Senate hearings on the FY1996 request. Senator Connie Mack 

of Florida, Chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, also asked the Architect for 

his opinions on the merits of continuing the Garden under 

jurisdiction of the legislative branch, or transferring it to 

another Federal agency. Architect of the Capitol George M. 

White responded by saying that transferring the United State 

Botanic Garden (USBG) “to another agency of the government would reduce the budget of the legislative branch,” but 

it “would not inevitably reduce costs to the government generally, unless the AOC were to retain control of the Conservatory and National Garden Projects, both would be delayed 

and their costs increased by being transferred to new supervision.” If the Garden were transferred to another agency, 

he continued, “there were three possibilities that suggest 

themselves: the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park 

Service of the Department of Interior and the Department 

of Agriculture. Of these the Smithsonian would appear the 

most suitable because of its overall mission, the nature of the 

(USBG), and its location.”312

As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, 

the House version of the FY1996 funding bill, H.R. 1854, 

contained language transferring the Garden’s operations to 

the Department of Agriculture.313 Th e Senate did not include 

the transfer language in its version of the bill, and the House 

provision was subsequently dropped in conference committee. 

Although the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have acted in both authorizing and appropriating 

roles in recent years, the Joint Committee on the Library 

and the Committee on House Administration continue 

to retain their legislative and oversight authorities over the 

Botanic Garden.314

Endnotes

1 John Y. Cole, Jeff erson’s Legacy: A Brief History of the Library of 

Congress (Washington: Library of Congress 1993), pp. 11–12.

2 2 Stat. 56 (Apr. 24, 1800); Journal of the House of Representatives, 

6th Cong. 1st sess., Apr. 25, 1800, p. 682; and Journal of the Senate, 

6th Cong. 1st sess., Apr. 28, 1800, p. 81.

3 2 Stat. 128-129 (Jan. 26, 1802); Journal of the House of Representatives, 7th Cong. 1st sess., Mar. 5, 1802, p. 121; and Journal of the 

Senate, 7th Cong. 1st sess., Mar. 11, 1802, p. 191.

4 2 Stat. 350 (Feb. 21, 1806); Journal of the House of Representatives, 

9th Cong. 1st sess., Feb. 27, 1806, p. 306; and Journal of the Senate, 

9th Cong. 1st sess., Dec. 17, 1806, p. 114.

5 2 Stat. 667-668 (Dec. 11, 1811); Journal of the Senate, 12th Cong. 

1st sess., Dec. 4, 1811, p. 19; and Journal of the House of Representatives, 12th Cong. 1st sess., Dec. 4, 1811, p. 52.

6 32 Stat. 735 (Feb. 7, 1902).

7 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 838 (Aug. 2, 1946).

8 Charles A. Goodrum and Helen W. Dalrymple, Th e Library of 

Congress (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), p. 13.

9 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 14. See also 

3 Stat. 246 (Oct. 21, 1814).

10 3 Stat. 195 (Jan. 30, 1815).

11 3 Stat. 225 (Mar. 3, 1815).

12 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 16.

13 4 Stat. 579 (July 14, 1832).

14 5 Stat. 409 (July 20, 1840). Th e reference in the statute to “the 

Committee on the Library” is assumed to be the Joint Committee 

on the Library as neither house had a Committee on the Library 

at that time.

15 9 Stat. 106 (Aug. 10, 1846).

16 Cole, Jeff erson’s Legacy: A Brief History of the Library of Congress, 

p. 14; and Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 17.

17 11 Stat. 379 (Feb. 5, 1859).

18 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 18.

19 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 19.

20 13 Stat. 445, at 448 (Feb. 2, 1865).
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 399

21 13 Stat. 540 (Mar. 3, 1865).

22 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 21; and 

Morris C. Leikind, “Th e Smithsonian Deposit in the Library of 

Congress,” Science, vol. 104, Aug. 9, 1946, pp. 145–146.

23 14 Stat. 573 (Feb. 2, 1867).

24 14 Stat. 464 (Feb. 2, 1867).

25 16 Stat. 212 (July 8, 1870).

26 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Library, Condition of 

the Library of Congress, 54th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 1573 (Washington: GPO, 1897).

27 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Sundry 

Civil Appropriations Bill, report to accompany H.R. 4729, 43rd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 149 (Washington: GPO, 1875), p. 24.

28 William C. Allen, History of the United States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington: GPO, 2001), 

p. 352.

29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Congressional 

Library Building, report to accompany H.R. 1297, 49th Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 173 (Washington: GPO, 1886), p. 1.

30 “New Library Building,” Washington Post, July 9, 1880, p. 1.

31 “Th e Congressional Library,” Washington Post, Apr. 3, 1884, 

p. 1.

32 24 Stat. 12 (Apr. 15, 1886).

33 29 Stat. 538, at 544 (Feb. 19, 1897).

34 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 30.

35 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 32.

36 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, pp. 34, 36; 

and 32 Stat. 480 (June 28, 1902).

37 31 Stat. 964 (Mar. 3, 1901).

38 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 37.

39 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 38. Also 

see Herbert Putnam, “Legislative Reference for Congress,” American Political Science Review, vol. 9, Aug. 1915, pp. 542–549; Ethel 

Cleland, “Legislative Reference,” American Political Science Review, 

vol. 10, Feb. 1916, pp. 110–113; and John H. Leek, “Th e Legislative Reference Bureau in Recent Years,” American Political Science 

Review, vol. 20, Nov. 1926, pp. 823–831.

40 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Library, Legislative 

Drafting Bureau and Reference Division, S. Rept. 1271, 62nd Cong., 

3rd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1913).

41 38 Stat. 463 (July 16, 1914).

42 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1181 (Oct. 26, 1970). Th e Committee’s 

activities involving the Congressional Research Service of the 

Library of Congress are discussed in detail in a separate section 

of this history.

43 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 39.

44 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 184; and 

P.L. 541, 43 Stat. 1107 (Mar. 3, 1925).

45 P.L. 453, 45 Stat. 622, 1397 (May 21, 1928).

46 P.L. 354, 46 Stat. 583 (June 13, 1930).

47 P.L. 686, 52 Stat. 808 (June 20, 1938).

48 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 43.

49 Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress, p. 43.

50 Quotation is found in Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library 

of Congress, p. 48.

51 Quotation is found in Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library 

of Congress, p. 48.

52 Quotation is found in Goodrum and Dalrymple, Th e Library 

of Congress, p. 48.

53 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 825, 832, 836 (Aug. 2, 1946).

54 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Fixing 

the Responsibility of Certifying Offi cers and the Disbursing Offi cer of 

the Library of Congress, report to accompany H.R. 7234, 85th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 85-470 (Washington: GPO, 1957), p. 2.

55 P.L. 85-53, 71 Stat. 81 (June 13, 1957).

56 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing a Preliminary Study and Review in Connection With Proposed 

Additional Building for the Library of Congress, report to accompany 

H.J. Res. 352, 86th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 86-1061 (Washington: 

GPO, 1959), p. 1.

57 P.L. 86-469, 74 Stat. 132 (May 14, 1960).

58 P.L. 89-260, 79 Stat. 986, 987 (Oct. 19, 1965).

59 P.L. 91-280, 84 Stat. 309 (June 12, 1970); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Transferring From the Architect of the Capitol to the Librarian of Congress the Authority to Purchase 

Offi ce Equipment and Furniture for the Library of Congress, report 

to accompany H.R. 11628, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1003 

(Washington: GPO, 1970).

60 P.L. 94-264; 90 Stat. 329 (Apr. 13, 1976). 

61 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Impact 

of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Reductions on the Library of 

Congress, hearings, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., May 7, 1986 (Washington: 

GPO, 1986).

62 P.L. 104-423, 104 Stat. 912-913 (Oct. 12, 1990).

63 P.L. 102-451, 106 Stat. 2253-2254 (Oct. 23, 1992); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Libraries and Memorials, Hearing on Library of Congress Oversight Financial Management Operations, hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st

sess., Nov. 12, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1993); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration and Joint Committee on 

the Library, Libraries and Library Services: Field Hearing, Robeson 
400 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

County Library, Lumberton, NC, Sept. 21, 1992, committee print, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 1992 (Washington: GPO, 1992); 

and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Additional Uses of the Library of Congress Special Facilities Center, report 

to accompany H.R. 5575, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-979 

(Washington: GPO, 1992).

64 P.L. 105-144, 111 Stat. 2667-2668 (Dec. 15, 1997); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities 

of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 

During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 31-45.

65 P.L. 106-481, 114 Stat. 2187-2191 (Nov. 9, 2000).

66 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight 

Hearing on the Library of Congress, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 

July 27, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 1.

67 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight 

Hearing on the Library of Congress: Current Issues in Library Management, hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 24, 2007 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008), pp. 1–2.

68 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Rept. 111-715, 

111th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 17; and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Improve Certain Administrative Operations of the Library of Congress, report to 

accompany H.R. 7234, H. Rept. 111-557, 111th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 17.

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Markup 

of H.R. 672, To Terminate the Election Assistance Commission; H.R. 

1934; To Improve Certain Administrative Operations of the Library of 

Congress; and a Committee Resolution on Subcommittee Membership, 

Meeting Before the Committee on House Administration, 112th Cong., 

1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Improve Certain Administrative 

Operations of the Library of Congress, and for Other Purposes, report 

to accompany H.R. 1934, H. Rept. 112-105, 112th Cong., 1st sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 2011).

70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Oversight, Library of Congress: Ensuring Continuity and 

Effi ciency During Leadership Transitions, hearing, 110th Cong., 1st

sess., Apr. 18, 2012 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 1–2. 

71 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 112-137, 

112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 13.

72 Senior-level positions—once graded as GS-16, GS-17, and 

GS-18 levels—were sometimes known as Supergrade positions.

73 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Underrepresentation of Minorities in Supergrade Positions and Above, at the Library of Congress, 

hearing, 101st Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 26, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 

1990), pp. 1–2.

74 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Underrepresentation of Minorities in Supergrade Positions and Above, at the Library of Congress, 

hearing, 101st Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 26, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 

1990), p. 2.

75 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, and House Committee 

on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations, Library of Congress Personnel Policies and Procedures, 

joint hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 18 and 24, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1994).

76 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Slow Progress Toward Workforce 

Diversity at the Library of Congress: Report of the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, committee print, 103rd 

Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1994).

77 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Management of the Workforce Services Center at the Library of Congress, hearings, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 29, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

78 P.L. 87-522, 76 Stat. 135 (July 3, 1962); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending Section 2 of the 

Act Entitled “An Act to Create a Library of Congress Trust Board, and 

for Other Purposes,” Approved March 2, 1925, as Amended (2 U.S.C. 

158), Relating to Deposits with the Treasurer of the United States of 

Gifts and Bequests to the Library of Congress and to Raise the Statutory 

Limitation Provided for in that Section, report to accompany S. 3266, 

H. Rept. 87-1892, 87th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1962).

79 P.L. 94-289, 90 Stat. 521 (May 22, 1976); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for Adjusting the Amount 

of Interest Paid on Funds Deposited with the Treasury of the United 

States by the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, report to accompany H.R. 8627, H. Rept. 94-737, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1975).

80 P.L. 95-277, 92 Stat. 236 (May 12, 1978); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Secretary of the 

Treasury to Designate an Assistant Secretary to Serve in His Place as 

a Member of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, report to 

accompany S. 2220, H. Rept. 95-1067, 95th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1978).

81 “Providing for Additional Membership on Library of Congress 

Trust Fund Board,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, Feb. 4, 1992, 

pp. 1259–1261; and P.L. 102-246, 106 Stat. 31 (Feb. 18, 1992).

82 P.L. 87-765, 76 Stat. 763 (Oct. 9, 1962); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of August 16, 

1957, Establishing in the Library of Congress a Library of Musical Scores 

and Other Instructional Materials to Further Educational, Vocational, 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 401

and Cultural Opportunities in the Field of Music for Blind Persons, 

report to accompany H.R. 12038, H. Rept. 87-2324, 87th Cong., 2nd

sess. (Washington: GPO, 1962). 

83 P.L. 89-522, 80 Stat. 330-331 (July 30, 1966); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Books, Recordings, 

and Other Materials for Use of the Blind and Other Handicapped 

Persons, hearings, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 29, 1966 (Washington: GPO, 1966); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Amending the Acts of March 3, 1931, and October 

19, 1962, Relating to the Furnishing of Books and Other Materials to the Blind so as to Authorize the Furnishing of Such Books 

and Other Materials to Other Handicapped Persons, report to 

accompany H.R. 13783, H. Rept. 89-1600, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 1966).

84 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Establishment of an American Folklife Center in the Library of 

Congress, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 17382, 

93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1527 (Washington: GPO, 1974), 

pp. 2–3.

85 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Establishment of an American Folklife Center in the 

Library of Congress, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany 

H.R. 17382, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1527 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974), p. 3.

86 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, 

Providing for the Establishment of an American Folklife Center in the 

Library of Congress, report to accompany H.R. 6673, 94th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 94-273 (Washington: GPO, 1975), pp. 2–3. See also 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing 

for the Establishment of an American Folklife Center in the Library of 

Congress, report to accompany H.R. 6673, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 94-273, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

87 P.L. 94-201, 89 Stat. 1129-1133 (Jan. 2, 1976).

88 P.L. 95-259, 92 Stat. 196 (Apr. 17, 1978); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending the American 

Folklife Preservation Act to Extend Authorization Appropriations, 

report to accompany H.R. 5981, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

95-865 (Washington: GPO, 1978).

89 P.L. 99-473, 100 Stat. 1212 (Oct. 16, 1986); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, American Folklife Center 

Authorization of Appropriations FY87–FY89, hearing, 99th Cong., 

2nd sess., June 24, 1986 (Washington: GPO, 1986); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, American Folklife 

Center Authorization of Appropriations FY87–FY89, report to 

accompany H.R. 4545, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-800 

(Washington: GPO, 1986).

90 P.L. 95-129, 91 Stat. 1151-1152 (Oct. 13, 1977); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Establishment of a Center for the Book in the Library of Congress, report 

to accompany H.R. 6214, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 95-491 

(Washington: GPO, 1977).

91 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the Ninety-Eighth Congress, H. Rept. 88-1173, 

98th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 25–26.

92 S. Con. Res. 59, 97 Stat. 1533-1534 (Nov. 18, 1983); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Librarian of Congress to Study the Changing Role of the Book in the Future, 

report to accompany S. Con. Res. 50, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

98-451 (Washington: GPO, 1983).

93 U.S. Congress, United States House of Representatives, Calendar 

of Business, One Hundred First Congress: Committee on House Administration (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 185.

94 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Library 

of Congress IT Strategic Planning, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 

29, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

95 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Charles 

H. W. Meehan Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act, 

report to accompany H.R. 6589, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

110-896, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

96 P.L. 110-336, 122 Stat. 3726-3728 (Oct. 2, 2008); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 

5803; H.R. 5893, Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film 

Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008; and H.R. 5972, 

U.S. Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2008, 

Meeting before the Committee on House Administration, 110th 

Cong., 2nd sess., May 7, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Library of Congress 

Sound Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act 

of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 5893, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 110-683, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2008).

97 P.L. 106-474, 114 Stat. 2085 (Nov. 9, 2000).

98 Following the isolated example of President Rutherford B. 

Hayes, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a federallymanaged presidential library to house and to maintain his papers. 

President Harry S. Truman followed Roosevelt’s precedent, and 

subsequent legislation facilitated like action by Truman’s successors. Th e presidential library system is supervised by the National 

Archives and Records Administration.

99 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on the Library, Microfi lming Presidential Papers, hearing 

on H.R. 7813, 85th Cong., 1st sess., June 21, 1957 (Washington: 

GPO, 1957).

100 P.L. 85-147, 71 Stat. 368 (Aug. 16, 1957); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Organizing and Microfi lming Papers of Presidents, report to accompany H.R. 7813, H. Rept. 

85-811, 85th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1957). 

101 P.L. 87-236, 75 Stat. 544 (Sept. 21, 1961); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of August 
402 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

16, 1957, Relating to Microfi lming Papers of Presidents of the United 

States to Remove Certain Liabilities of the United States With Respect 

to Such Activities, report to accompany H.R. 6667, H. Rept. 87-901, 

87th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1961).

102 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Indexing and Microfi lming of Certain Records of the Russian 

Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in Alaska in the Collections of the 

Library of Congress, report to accompany S. 1644, H. Rept. 87-608, 

87th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1961).

103 P.L. 87-113, 75 Stat. 241 (July 31, 1961).

104 P.L. 100-83, 101 Stat. 549 (Aug. 4, 1987).

105 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 29, 31, 

32, 34, 36–37.

106 H. Con. Res. 269, 114 Stat. 3138 (Apr. 13, 2000).

107 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, State of 

Our Nation’s Libraries, hearing, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 21, 1993 

(Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 1.

108 P.L. 100-158, 101 Stat. 896-898 (Nov. 9, 1987).

109 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, 

Support for the Civil Achievement Award Program in Honor of the Offi ce 

of Speaker of the House of Representatives, H. Rept. 100-221, 100th Cong., 

1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1987); and 113 Stat. 1330 (Nov. 11, 1999).

110 Robert V. Remini, Th e House: Th e History of the House of Representatives (New York: Smithsonian Books in association with 

HarperCollins, 2006).

111 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Civil 

Rights History Project Act of 2008, H. Rept. 110-848, 110th Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008).

112 P.L. 111-19, 123 Stat. 1612-1615 ( May 12, 2009).

113 Samuel Rothstein, “Th e Origins of Legislative Reference Services in the United States,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 15, 

Aug. 1990, pp. 405–406.

114 Progressives sought governmental reforms that would insulate 

lawmaking from the infl uence of special interests, while also endowing amateur legislators with independent expert policy advice. Senator 

Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin was a leading voice for such reforms. 

See John Y. Cole, “Th e Congressional Research Service,” in John Y. 

Cole and Jane Aikin, eds., Encyclopedia of the Library of Congress: For 

Congress, the Nation, and the World (Washington and Lanham, MD: 

Th e Library of Congress and Bernan Press, 2004), p. 19.

115 Rothstein, “Th e Origins of Legislative Reference Services in 

the United States,” pp. 406–407.

116 P.L. 63-127, 38 Stat. 463 (July 16, 1914). See: Rothstein, “Th e 

Origins of Legislative Reference Services in the United States,” p. 

409; and “Expert Aid for Congress,” LaFollette’s Weekly, vol. 6, 

July 4, 1914.

117 U.S. Congress, House Commission on Information and Facilities, Information Resources and Services Available from the Library of 

Congress and the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Doc. 94-527 (Washington: GPO, 1976); Charles A. Goodrum 

and Helen W. Dalrymple, Th e Library of Congress (Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press, 1982); and Cole, “Th e Congressional Research 

Service,” pp. 517–520.

118 P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 825, 836 (Aug. 2, 1946).

119 George B. Galloway, “Th e Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,” American Political Science Review, vol. 45, 

March 1951, pp. 41–68.

120 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1181 (Oct. 26, 1970); 2 U.S.C. 166. See 

also: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rules, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, report to accompany H.R. 17654, 91st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1215 (Washington: GPO, 1970).

121 P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1181 (Oct. 26, 1970); 2 U.S.C. 166.

122 House Rule X (j)(4). Th ere is one minor exception to the Committee’s jurisdiction over the Library and CRS. Th e Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction, per House 

Rule X, (r)(11), over the construction and maintenance of Library 

of Congress buildings and grounds. All House members of the Joint 

Committee on the Library (JCL) are drawn from the Committee 

on House Administration. The membership of the latter committee, therefore, exercises additional authority over the Service 

through the JCL. For instance, in accordance with the 1970 act, 

the Librarian of Congress consults with the JCL when appointing 

the Director of CRS.

123 House Rule X (j)(4). Th e language giving explicit committee 

approval authority for CRS publications was fi rst included in the 

FY1954 legislative branch appropriations bill (P.L. 83-178, 67 Stat. 

329 (Aug. 1, 1953)). In the report of the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations that accompanied the FY1966 legislative branch 

appropriations bill, this language was interpreted to not apply to 

extra copies of reports provided to Congress or to confidential 

reports written in response to congressional inquiries (U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Appropriation Bill, 1966, report to accompany H.R. 8775, 89th Cong., 1st 

sess., S. Rept. 424 (Washington: GPO, 1965), pp. 12–13. Some 

of the history and interpretation of this provision are based on the 

fi ndings of Walter Kravitz, Congressional Research Service, Library 

of Congress, Oct. 6, 1971 (CRS internal fi les).

124 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service,

Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 

Congress for Fiscal Year 2005 to the Joint Committee on the Library 

(Washington: Library of Congress, 2005), p. 32. 

125 Early offi cial actions of the Committee in regard to LRS are 

referenced in an unpublished committee hearing in 1948 and interOVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 403

nal minutes of LRS management meetings from May 25, 1950, 

which indicate that the Committee was actively responding to LRS 

requests for policy guidance. See: U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Legislative Reference Service, unpublished 

hearing, 80th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 14, 1948 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No. 80 HHad-T.8); and Minutes of Senior 

Specialists Meeting, Legislative Reference Service, May 25, 1950 

(internal CRS fi les).

126 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill, 1950, report to accompany H.R. 

5060, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 81-763, (Washington: GPO, 

1949), p. 10. It was also subsequently noted in the House Appropriations Committee hearings on the FY1950 and FY1951 legislative 

branch appropriations bills, at which members of the Committee 

on House Administration testifi ed regarding LRS issues. On the 

issues of LRS/CRS staff loans to committees, see Minutes of Senior 

Specialists Meeting, Legislative Reference Service, October 8, 1952 

(internal CRS fi les); and U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional 

Research Service, History of the Committee on House Administration, 

1946–1984, by Paul Dwyer, internal CRS document (1987), pp. 

11–12. Th e provisions for committee reimbursement for LRS/CRS 

staff loans have been more recently included in a Memorandum of 

Oct. 13, 1995, from CRS Director Daniel P. Mullhollan to thenChairman Bill Th omas of the Committee on House Oversight 

(internal CRS fi les).

127 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Th e Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress: A Memorandum 

on Its Achievements, Problems, and Potential, With Recommendations 

for Its Improvement (prepared by Ernest S. Griffi th, Director, Legislative Reference Service), committee print, 85th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 1958).

128 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992), p. 69. 

129 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 

13, 71.

130 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 71.

131 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, 105th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 29–32, 

34; U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fourth Congress (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 71, 87; and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One 

Hundred Sixth Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 106-1056 

(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 10. See also, U.S. Congress, House 

Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations for the Legislative 

Branch for Fiscal Year 1996 (Conference Report), 104th Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 104-212 (Washington: GPO, 1995), which specifi es 

the involvement of the Committee on House Oversight in ongoing 

assessments of LIS and information duplication issues.

132 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1558 (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 

14; and U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 

Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 

Congress for Fiscal Year 1980 to the Joint Committee on the Library 

(Washington: Congressional Research Service, 1980), pp. 5–6.

133 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 

History of the Committee on House Administration, 1946–1984, by 

Paul Dwyer, internal CRS document (1987), p. 287.

134 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth Congress, p. 19; and 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the 

Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the Ninety-Seventh Congress, 97th Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Rept. 97-990 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 93.

135 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 

Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 

Congress for Fiscal Year 1997 to the Joint Committee on the Library 

(Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2005), p. 2.

136 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Studies 

Dealing With Budgeting, Staffi ng, and Administrative Activities of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1946–1978, committee print, 95th 

Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1978).

137 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, History 

of the House of Representatives (Washington: GPO, 1962); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, History of the United 

States House of Representatives: 1789–1994 (Washington: GPO, 

1994); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Statutory History of the U.S. Capitol Police Force, committee print, 

99th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985).

138 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Committee Records Guidelines: Guidelines for Standing and Select Committees in the Preparation, Filing, Archiving, and Disposal of Committee 

Records, committee print, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1979); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 
404 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives During the Ninety-Sixth Congress, 96th 

Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 176.

139 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, 

Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration 

of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred and First 

Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: 

GPO, 1991), p. 137.

140 U.S. Congress, United States House of Representatives, Calendar of Business, One Hundred First Congress: Committee on House 

Administration (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 185.

141 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, and House Committee 

on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Civil Service, 

Underrepresentation of Minorities in Supergrade Positions and Above, 

at the Library of Congress, joint hearing, 101st Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 26, 

1990 (Washington: GPO, 1990); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, 

and House Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Library of Congress Personnel 

Policies and Procedures, joint hearings, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 

18, 24, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1994).

142 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on Library of Congress, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 

July 27, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 2007).

143 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 112-137, 

112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 13–14.

144 Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, 

“printing” usually refers to the traditional process of impressing 

paper with ink to produce multiple copies of documents, whereas 

“publishing” adds to the former concept the public distribution or 

availability of the produced documents. Th e production of information in electronic forms and formats does not constitute “printing,” 

but, regardless of the new technological creation process, “publishing” retains its earlier understanding.

145 See, for example, 1 Stat. 68 (Sept. 15, 1789), 443 (Mar. 3, 

1795), 519 (Mar. 3, 1797), 724 (Mar. 2, 1799); 2 Stat. 302 (Mar. 

27, 1804); 3 Stat. 145 (Nov. 21, 1814), 439 (Apr. 20, 1818), 576 

(May 11, 1820).

146 See 1 Stat. 68 (Sept. 15, 1789).

147 See, for example, 1 Stat. 28 (July 27, 1789), 49 (Aug. 7, 1789), 

65 (Sept. 2, 1789). Th ese and similar provisions were consolidated in 

the Revised Statutes of the United States (1878) at Section 161, which 

is presently located in the United States Code at 5 U.S.C. § 301.

148 3 Stat. 140 (Dec. 27, 1813).

149 13 Stat. 460 (Feb. 2, 1865).

150 17 Stat. 510 (Mar. 3, 1873).

151 9 Stat. 113 (Aug. 3, 1846).

152 12 Stat. 117 (June 23, 1860).

153 28 Stat. 601 (Jan. 12, 1895).

154 11 Stat. 379 (Feb. 5, 1859); the Department of the Interior was 

established in 1849.

155 15 Stat. 292 (Mar. 3, 1869).

156 3 Stat. 140 (Dec. 27, 1813).

157 11 Stat. 253 (Jan. 28, 1857).

158 28 Stat. 610 (Jan. 12, 1895); current authority for the depository library program may be found at 44 U.S.C. § 1901-1915.

159 33 Stat. 584 (Mar. 28, 1904).

160 42 Stat. 541 (May 11, 1922).

161 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 812, at 825 (Aug. 2, 1946). 

162 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 838 (Aug. 2, 1946).

163 P.L. 97-4, 95 Stat. 6 (Feb. 17, 1981).

164 1 Stat. 342 (Mar. 14, 1794).

165 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 14.

166 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

pp. 14–15.

167 3 Stat. 538 (Mar. 3, 1819).

168 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 17.

169 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 18.

170 5 Stat. 523, at 526 (Aug. 26, 1842).

171 9 Stat. 113 (Aug. 3, 1846).

172 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 21.

173 10 Stat. 30 (Aug. 26, 1852).

174 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 24.

175 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

pp. 24–30.

176 12 Stat. 117 (June 23, 1860).
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 405

177 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 36.

178 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 42.

179 14 Stat. 398 (Feb. 22, 1867).

180 17 Stat. 510 (Mar. 3, 1873). 

181 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: A 

History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), p. 49.

182 19 Stat. 102, at 105 (July 31, 1876).

183 28 Stat. 601 (Jan. 12, 1895). 

184 P.L. 276, 43 Stat. 658 (June 7, 1924).

185 P.L. 381, 39 Stat. 1070, at 1121 (Mar. 3, 1917).

186 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

pp. 132–133.

187 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

pp. 144–145.

188 See P.L. 90-620, 82 Stat. 1238 (Oct. 22, 1968).

189 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 825 and 838 (Aug. 2, 1946).

190 P.L. 741, 64 Stat. 567 (Aug. 30, 1950).

191 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

192 P.L. 44, 63 Stat. 48 (Apr. 19, 1949).

193 P.L. 156, 63 Stat. 405 (July 5, 1949). 

194 P.L. 387, 49 Stat. 956 (Aug. 28, 1935). Th e Offi cial Register of 

the United States, generally known as the “Blue Book” due to the 

color of its cover, was compiled annually by the United States Civil 

Service Commission, and provided the names and compensation of 

all persons occupying administrative and supervisory positions. It 

was fi rst published for 1816; was issued biennially for 1817 to 1921; 

and was produced annually for 1925 until its demise with the 1959 

volume. Th e compilation was initially prepared by the Department 

of State (1816-1859), followed by the Department of the Interior 

(1861–1905), the Bureau of the Census (1907–1932), and the United 

States Civil Service Commission (1933–1959). During 1893–1893, 

it was also published as a House miscellaneous document. Laurence 

F. Schmeckebier, Government Publications and Th eir Use (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1936), p. 353.

195 P.L. 125, 65 Stat. 198 (Aug. 27, 1951).

196 P.L. 87-85, 75 Stat. 202 (July 11, 1961).

197 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Analysis and Evaluation of Selected Government Printing Offi ce Operations, Prepared by 

Coopers & Lybrand, an Independent Consulting Firm, committee print, 

96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1979).

198 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Federal Government Printing and Publishing: Policy Issues, Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44 to the Joint Committee on Printing, committee print, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1979).

199 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Th e Printing 

Procurement Program of the Federal Government: Report of the Task 

Force on the Printing Procurement Program, committee print, 99th 

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 4.

200 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Th e Printing 

Procurement Program of the Federal Government: Report of the Task 

Force on the Printing Procurement Program, committee print, 99th 

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1986), p. 5.

201 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

202 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), at 952.

203 Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council of 

America, 463 U.S. 1216 (1983); and United States Senate v. Federal 

Trade Commission, 463 U.S. 1216 (1983).

204 44 U.S.C. § 103.

205 See Congressional Record, vol. 65, June 4, 1924, p. 10556; U.S. 

Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Report 

with Recommendations of the Committee on Rules and Administration on the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of 

Congress on the Library, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-327 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 2; 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 282, 286-287 (1957).

206 Lewis v. Sawyer, 698 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Lewis was 

decided immediately after three D.C. Circuit rulings overturning 

a variety of legislative veto provisions.

207 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Title 44 U.S.C.—Review, 

hearings, 101st Cong., 1st sess., May 23, 24, and June 28, 29, 1989 

(Washington: GPO, 1989).

208 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Th e Government Printing 

Offi ce Improvement Act, hearings, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 7 and 

8, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 1990).

209 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Oversight on the U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce General Sales Program, hearings, 101st 

Cong., 2nd sess., July 26 and 27, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 1990).

210 U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, Government Printing Offi ce: 

Monopoly-Like Status Contributes to Ineffi ciency and Ineff ectiveness, 

GAO Report GAO/GGD-90-107 (Washington: Sept. 1990).

211 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Congressional 

Oversight of the Government Printing Offi ce, hearing, 102nd Cong., 

1st sess., Jan. 24, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991).

212 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Government 

Information as a Public Asset, hearing, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 

25, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991).
406 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

213 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, New Technology 

and the Government Printing Offi ce, hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 

June 19 and July 24, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1992).

214 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Annual Review 

of GPO Activities, hearing, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 30, 1992 

(Washington: GPO, 1992).

215 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration and 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Joint Hearing on H.R. 2772, the GPO Wide Information Network for Data 

Online Act of 1991, and S. 2813, the GPO Gateway to Government 

Act of 1992, joint hearing, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., July 23, 1992 

(Washington: GPO, 1992); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Government Printing Office Electronic 

Information Access Enhancement Act of 1992, report to accompany 

H.R. 5983, H. Rept. 102-933, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: 

GPO, 1992).

216 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Government Printing Offi ce Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act 

of 1993, report to accompany H.R. 1328, H. Rept. 103-51, 103rd

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Government Printing Offi ce Electronic 

Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, report to accompany S. 

564, H. Rept. 103-108, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1993); and 107 Stat. 112 (June 8,1993).

217 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Review of the 

Defense Printing Service, hearing, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., July 15, 1993 

(Washington: GPO, 1993).

218 17 Stat. 510 (Mar. 3, 1873).

219 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

pp. 48–49.

220 Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 3.

221 28 Stat. 601, at 603 (Jan. 12, 1895); 44 U.S.C. § 901.

222 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 120.

223 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 144.

224 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 812, at 837 (Aug. 2, 1946).

225 U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 100 GPO Years, 1861–1961: 

A History of United States Public Printing (Washington: GPO, 1961), 

p. 146.

226 Neil MacNeil, Forge of Democracy: Th e House of Representatives 

(New York: David McKay Company, 1963), pp. 302–303.

227 See “Notice,” Congressional Record, vol. 124, Feb. 16, 1978, 

p. 3676.

228 See “Notice to House Members,” Congressional Record, vol. 

131, Sept. 4, 1985, p. 22835.

229 “Privileges of the House—Resolution Asking for Investigation 

Concerning Congressional Record,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, 

May 8, 1985, pp. 11072–11079.

230 H.Res. 230 (99th Cong., 1st sess.), Congressional Record, vol. 

131, July 23, 1985, p. 20138.

231 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Accuracy 

in House Proceedings Resolution, report to accompany H. Res. 230, 

99th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 99-228 (Washington: GPO, 1985).

232 “Accuracy in House Proceedings Resolution,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 131, July 30, 1985, pp. 21783–21786.

233 “Privileges of the House Resolution Directing Committee on 

Rules to Undertake Investigation Concerning the Congressional 

Record,” Congressional Record, vol. 130, Jan. 24, 1984, pp. 250–251.

234 Gregg v. Barrett, 594 F.Supp. 108, at 112 (D.D.C. 1984).

235 Gregg v. Barrett, 771 F.2d 539, at 549 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

236 Rep. Robert S. Walker, “Privileges of the House—Relating to 

the Integrity of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives,”

Congressional Record, vol. 136, Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515.

237 “Congressional Record Task Force Formed,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 136, Feb. 20, 1990, p. 1874.

238 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on the Congressional Record, committee print, 101st Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 5. Th e report also appears 

in Congressional Record, vol. 136, Oct. 27, 1990, pp. 37124–37127.

239 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Task 

Force on the Congressional Record, committee print, 101st Cong., 2nd 

sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 5.

240 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Government Printing Offi ce Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act 

of 1993, report to accompany H.R. 1328, H. Rept. 103-51, 103rd

Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 4; P.L. 103-40, 107 

Stat. 112-114 (June 8, 1993).

241 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 

1995, p. 468.

242 P.L. 108-102, 117 Stat. 1198 (Oct. 29, 2003).

243 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House 

Administration During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 

112-360, 112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 16–17. 

See also U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Oversight, GPO—Issues and Challenges: How 

Will GPO Transition to the Future?, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., 

May 11, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011).

244 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Oversight, Modernizing Information Delivery in the 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 407

House, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 2011 (Washington: 

GPO, 2011), pp. 1–2.

245 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, H. Rept. 112-360, 

112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 17.

246 Harold C. Relyea, “Congressional Directory,” in Donald C. 

Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton Keller, eds., Encyclopedia 

of the United States Congress, vol. 1 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 

1995), p. 509.

247 U.S. Congress, Congressional Directory for the First Session of 

the Fortieth Congress of the United States of America, Compiled for 

the Use of Congress by Ben Perley Poore, Clerk of Printing Records 

(Washington: GPO, 1867), reverse side of title page.

248 For the fi rst time, Section 7 of the Copyright Act of 1909 

provided that “no copyright shall subsist in the original text of any 

work which is in the public domain . . . or in any publication of 

the United States Government.” P.L. 349, 35 Stat. 1075, at 1077 

(Mar. 4, 1909).

249 1 Stat. 68 (Sept. 15, 1789).

250 See 1 Stat. 28 (July 27, 1789), 49 (Aug. 7, 1789), and 65 (Sept. 

2, 1789). Th ese and similar provisions were consolidated in the 

Revised Statutes of the United States (1878) at Section 161, which 

is presently located in the United States Code at 5 U.S.C. § 301.

251 U.S. Congress, House Committee to Inquire into the State 

of the Ancient Public Records and Archives of the United States, 

Report of the Committee to Inquire into the State of the Ancient Public Records and Archives of the United States (Washington: R. C. 

Weightman, 1810).

252 Frank L. Wells, Garrard B. Winston, and Henry P. Beers, 

“Historical Development of the Records Disposal Policy of the 

Federal Government Prior to 1934,” American Archivist, vol. 7, July 

1944, pp. 181–182.

253 Donald R. McCoy, Th e National Archives: America’s Ministry 

of Documents, 1934–1968 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1978), p. 5.

254 21 Stat. 412 (Mar. 3, 1881); 22 Stat. 228 (Aug. 5, 1882).

255 Frank L. Wells, Garrard B. Winston, and Henry P. Beers, 

“Historical Development of the Records Disposal Policy of the 

Federal Government Prior to 1934,” American Archivist, vol. 7, 

July 1944, p. 184.

256 25 Stat. 672 (Feb. 16, 1889).

257 28 Stat. 933 (Mar. 2, 1895).

258 Frank L. Wells, Garrard B. Winston, and Henry P. Beers, 

“Historical Development of the Records Disposal Policy of the 

Federal Government Prior to 1934,” American Archivist, vol. 7, 

July 1944, p. 187.

259 Frank L. Wells, Garrard B. Winston, and Henry P. Beers, 

“Historical Development of the Records Disposal Policy of the 

Federal Government Prior to 1934,” American Archivist, vol. 7, July 

1944, pp. 188–189.

260 Frank L. Wells, Garrard B. Winston, and Henry P. Beers, 

“Historical Development of the Records Disposal Policy of the 

Federal Government Prior to 1934,” American Archivist, vol. 7, 

July 1944, pp. 199.

261 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers, Disposition of Certain Records of the 

United States Government, hearings on H.R. 7504, 75th Cong., 1st 

sess., July 1–2, 1937 (Washington: GPO, 1937).

262 P.L. 601, 60 Stat. 812, at 826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

263 P.L. 91-287, 84 Stat. 320 (June 23, 1970).

264 Th e National Archives was made a subordinate unit of the 

newly established General Services Administration by the Federal 

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (P.L. 152, 63 Stat. 

377, at 381 (June 30, 1949)).

265 P.L. 98-497, 98 Stat. 2280, 2290 (Oct. 19, 1984).

266 “Transfer of Records Not Less Th an 50 Years Old to National 

Archives,” Congressional Record, vol. 99, June 16, 1953, p. 6641.

267 “Study of Unnecessary Government Printing and Paperwork,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 101, July 5, 1955, pp. 9938–9939.

268 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee to Study Federal Printing and Paperwork, Paperwork 

Management, Part 1: Forms Management, hearings, 84th Cong., 2nd 

sess., Apr. 30, May 1, 10, 1956 (Washington: GPO, 1956); and U.S. 

Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Special 

Subcommittee to Study Federal Printing and Paperwork, Sale and 

Distribution of Government Publications by the Superintendent of 

Documents, hearing, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 7, 1956 (Washington: GPO, 1956).

269 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Paperwork Management and Printing Facilities in the United States Government: Part I, Forms Management, report pursuant to H. Res. 262, 

84th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 84-2945 (Washington: GPO, 1956).

270 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Paperwork Management and Printing Facilities in the United States Government: Part II, Publications Management, report pursuant to H. 

Res.262, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 84-2945 (Washington: 

GPO, 1957).

271 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Revision 

of Laws Relating to Depositories, report to accompany H.R. 13140,

85th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 85-2136 (Washington: GPO, 1958).

272 P.L. 432, 48 Stat. 1123 (June 19, 1934).

273 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library, To Encourage and Foster 

the Cooperation of Private and State Historical Societies with the 
408 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

National Historical Publications Commission, hearing on H.J. Res. 

233, 85th Cong., 1st sess., June 5, 1957 (Washington: GPO, 1957).

274 S. Con. Res. 31, 71 Stat. B41 (Aug. 22, 1957).

275 When President Ford announced his pardon of former President Nixon on September 8, the White House released the NixonSampson letters of agreement concerning the former President’s 

records and a related legal opinion by the Attorney General; also, 

Philip W. Buchen, counsel to the President, held a transcribed 

news conference on the Nixon pardon and presidential materials 

agreement on September 8. See Weekly Compilation of Presidential 

Documents, vol. 10, Sept. 16, 1974, pp. 1104–1118.

276 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Printing, Th e “Public Documents Act,” hearings, 93rd Cong., 

2nd sess., Sept. 30 and Oct. 4, 1974 (Washington: GPO, 1974).

277 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, report to accompany S. 4016, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1507 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974).

278 P.L. 93-526, 88 Stat. 1695 (Dec. 19, 1974).

279 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, GSA 

Regulations to Implement Title I of the Presidential Recordings and 

Materials Preservation Act, hearings, 94th Cong., 1st sess., May 22 

and June 3, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

280 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Disapproving Regulations Proposed by the General Services Administration 

Implementing the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation 

Act, report to accompany H. Res. 710, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

94-560 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

281 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Disapproving Certain Regulations Proposed by GSA Implementing Section 

104 of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, 

report to accompany H. Res. 1505, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

94-1485 (Washington: GPO, 1976).

282 P.L. 94-261, 90 Stat. 326 (Apr. 11, 1976).

283 In addition to Brownell, the other members of the panel 

included Lucius D. Battle, senior vice president of the Communications Satellite Corporation; Philip W. Buchen, former White 

House counsel to President Ford; Ann Morgan Campbell, Executive 

Director of the Society of American Archivists; David O. Cooke, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Administration; Allen 

Ertel, member of the House of Representatives; Frank B. Freidel, Jr., 

Harvard University professor of history; Elizabeth Hamer Kegan, 

Assistant Librarian of Congress for American and Library Studies; 

Robert J. Lagomarsino, member of the House of Representatives; 

William E. Leuchtenberg, Columbia University professor of history; 

J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., Senior Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit; Edward Mezvinsky, member of the House 

of Representatives; Gaylord Nelson, United States Senator; James B. 

Rhoads, Archivist of the United States; John M. Th omas, Assistant 

Secretary of State for Administration; Michael M. Uhlmann, former Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Aff airs; and Lowell 

P. Weicker, Jr., United States Senator.

284 U.S. National Study Commission on Records and Documents 

of Federal Offi cials, Final Report of the National Study Commission 

on Records and Documents of Federal Offi cials (Washington: GPO, 

1977). Th is document also contained an alternate report of minority members of the commission. Also see Anna Kasten Nelson, 

“Th e Public Documents Commission: Politics and Presidential 

Records,” Government Publications Review, vol. 9, Sept.-Oct. 1982, 

pp. 443–451.

285 P.L. 95-591, 92 Stat. 2523; 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207 (Nov. 4, 

1978).

286 P.L. 95-440, 92 Stat. 1063 (Oct. 10, 1978).

287 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Committee Records Guidelines: Guidelines for Standing and Select Committees in 

the Preparation, Filing, Archiving, and Disposal of Committee Records, 

committee print, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1979).

288 3 Stat. 140 (Dec. 27, 1813).

289 11 Stat. 253 (Jan. 28, 1857)

290 Congressional Record, vol. 105, Mar. 16, 1959, pp. 4275–4278.

291 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Revising 

the Laws Pertaining to Depository Libraries, report to accompany 

H.R. 8141, 87th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 87-724 (Washington: 

GPO, 1961).

292 P.L. 87-579, 76 Stat. 352 (Aug. 9, 1962).

293 P.L. 92-368, 86 Stat. 507 (Aug. 10, 1972).

294 P.L. 95-261, 92 Stat. 199 (Apr. 17, 1978).

295 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, Provision of 

Federal Government Publications in Electronic Format to Depository 

Libraries, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access 

to Federal Automated Data Bases, committee print, 98th Cong., 2nd 

sess. (Washington: GPO, 1984).

296 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Th e Botanic 

Garden and Its Relation to the Joint Committee on the Library, committee print, 62nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1912), p. 3.

297 Act of August 26, 1842, 5 Stat. 534.

298 Act of June 17, 1844, 5 Stat. 691.

299 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, Th e Botanic 

Garden and Its Relation to the Joint Committee on the Library, committee print, 62nd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1912), pp. 4–6.

300 Act of August 18, 1856, 11 Stat. 104. See also: U.S. Congress, 

House Committee on the Library, United States Botanic Garden: 

Preliminary Report, committee print, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1934), p. 16.

301 U.S. Congress, Senate, Estimates of Expenditures on the Botanic 

Garden, 1850-1907, S. Doc. 404, 60th Cong., 1st sess., prepared by 
OVERSIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ENTITIES 409

the Committee on Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1908), p. 4; 

and Anne-Catherine Fallen, A Botanic Garden for the Nation: Th e 

United States Botanic Garden, S. Doc., 109-19, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 29.

302 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Library, United States 

Botanic Garden: Preliminary Report, committee print, 73rd Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1934), p. 17.

303 Ibid.

304 Ibid., pp. 18–22.

305 Karen Solit, History of the United States Botanic Garden: 1816–

1991, prepared by the Architect of the Capitol under the direction 

of the Joint Committee on the Library (Washington: GPO, 1993), 

p. 55.

306 P.L. 79-601, 90 Stat 826-826 (Aug. 2, 1946), which contained 

the Rules of the House of Representatives in sec. 121 of Title I, Part 2.

307 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, 

A Summary of H. Res. 988, Committee Reform Amendments of 

1974, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1974), p. 25. 

308 Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Rule 

X, clause 1(r)(11), H. Doc. 108-241 (Washington: GPO, 2005), 

pp. 467–468.

309 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations 

for 1996, hearing, part 2, 104th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 

1995), p. 274.

310 Ibid., pp. 273–274. 

311 Ibid., pp. 274–288.

312 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations 

for 1996, hearings on H.R. 1854, 104th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 

1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995), pp. 450–451.

313 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1996, 104th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

104-141, (Washington: GPO, 1995), pp. 26–27.

314 For example see: P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2240 (Dec. 26, 2007).

NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 411

X. NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES

Smithsonian Institution

Origins and Development

In 1826, James Smithson, a British scientist, drew up his 

last will and testament, naming his nephew, Henry James 

Hungerford, as his beneficiary. Smithson stipulated that 

should Hungerford die without heirs (as he did in 1835), 

the estate should go “to the United States of America, to 

found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian 

Institution, an establishment for the increase and diff usion 

of knowledge among men.” Th e motives behind Smithson’s 

bequest remain mysterious. “Probably,” as Paul H. Oehser 

concludes in his history of the Smithsonian, there was “no 

one event that persuaded James Smithson to bequeath his 

fortune to the United States. He was a man of his times, 

and his reasons were no doubt the result of the persuasive 

infl uences that his age brought to bear on an independent 

personality who wanted to do something original and lasting 

for his fellow man.”1

Although Smithson’s library at the time of his death 

indicates that “he had some interest in and knowledge of the 

United States,” he never visited America or apparently corresponded with anyone here. “Some have suggested that his 

bequest was motivated in part by revenge against the rigidities of British society, which had denied Smithson, who was 

illegitimate, the right to use his father’s name. Others have 

suggested it refl ected his interest in the Enlightenment ideals 

of democracy and universal education.”2

Smithson died in Genoa, Italy, on June 26, 1829, at the 

age of 64. Six years later, his nephew died without any heirs, 

and the provisions of Smithson’s will became operative. Seven 

weeks after Hungerford’s death, the U.S. government was formally notifi ed of the Smithsonian bequest. Not until December 1835, however, did President Andrew Jackson formally 

announce the bequest. In notifying Congress of Smithson’s 

wishes, Jackson explained that he did not have the authority to 

accept it and asked Congress for guidance on how to proceed. 

A “long and tedious debate” then ensued in Congress “fi rst as 

to whether the bequest should be accepted at all, and second 

as to what form and character the Smithsonian Institution 

should actually take.” Eventually on May 2, 1836, the Senate 

decided to accept the legacy. House consideration was more 

protracted. John Quincy Adams, as chairman of a special 

committee established to consider the matter, proved to be 

the “most eff ective Smithsonian protagonist,” and “succeeded 

in overcoming the House opposition by his eloquence and 

successfully steering the passage of the bill” on May 25, 1836. 

Th e bill, signed by President Jackson on July 1, provided for 

acceptance of the legacy bequeathed to the United States, and 

authorized $10,000 to cover the cost of prosecuting the claim.3

Smithson’s legacy, which amounted to more than 

100,000 gold sovereigns, was delivered to the mint at Philadelphia in September 1838. Recoined in U.S. currency, the 

gift amounted to more than half a million dollars. Acceptance 

of the Smithson will and fund did not, however, result in the 

establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. Th at December, President Martin Van Buren announced that the fund 

of about $500,000 had been received in the Treasury, and 

reminded Congress of its obligation to fulfi ll the object of 

the bequest—i.e., to establish the Smithsonian Institution. 

Th ere was no precedent for dealing with such a bequest, and 

only a handful of scientifi c foundations were in existence that 

were national in scope and could be used as models. Just what 

the Smithsonian would actually be remained undecided for 

another eight years as the nation’s legislators were preoccupied 

by the Panic of 1837 and the subsequent six-year depression.

Finally, in August 1846, following considerable congressional debate,4

 President James K. Polk signed legislation 

introduced by Representative Robert Dale Owen of Indiana, 
412 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

that established the Smithsonian Institution as a trust to be 

administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. Th e act 

establishing the Smithsonian, Paul H. Oehser has written, 

while containing imperfections:

demonstrated an honest attempt on the part of 

Congress to interpret and implement the wishes 

of Smithson, whose directions were, after all, open 

ended. ‘Increase and diff usion of knowledge’ could 

mean many things, and it is certainly to the credit 

of those antebellum lawmakers that they did as 

well as they did, despite all the behind-the-scenes 

lobbying and feuding that went on in an attempt to 

make the Smithsonian something other than what 

it fi nally became.5

John Quincy Adams, who fought hard for the Smithsonian, may well have summarized the importance of the Smithsonian Institution best when he said, “Of all the foundations 

of establishments for pious or charitable uses, which ever 

signalized the spirit of the age, or the comprehensive benefi -

cence of the founder, none can be named more deserving the 

approbation of mankind than” the Smithsonian Institution.6

Th e 1846 law establishing the Institution’s framework 

provided for the disposition of the Smithsonian funds, a 

15-member Board of Regents, a Chancellor (who was to be 

the presiding offi cer of the Board), an Executive Committee, 

and a Secretary (who was to be the executive offi cer of the 

Institution). Congress delegated responsibility for conducting the business of the Institution to a Board of Regents 

comprised of: the Vice President, the Chief Justice, and the 

mayor of Washington, all of whom were ex offi cio members; 

three members of the United States Senate, appointed by 

the President of the Senate; three members of the House of 

Representatives, appointed by the Speaker; and six citizens, 

two of whom had to be District of Columbia residents and 

four of whom had to be from diff erent states, appointed by 

joint resolution of the House and Senate.

Th e act provided for the selection of a site for a Smithsonian building and its construction; transferred to the 

Smithsonian all objects of art, natural history, and so forth, 

belonging to the United States (in Washington), and also 

the various collections of James Smithson, which had been 

received by the United States; delineated the duties of the 

Secretary; and provided for salaries for the Institution’s 

staff . Additionally, the act authorized special meetings of 

members of the Institution; an annual appropriation not to 

exceed $25,000 from interest on the Smithsonian fund for 

the gradual formation of a library; and for the Institution 

managers to ensure that income was spent according to “the 

purposes” set forth by James Smithson. Congress reserved 

the right to alter, amend, and repeal any of the provisions 

of the act.7

On December 3, 1846, professor Joseph Henry of 

Princeton, “the foremost American physicist of his day,” was 

selected to serve as the Smithsonian’s first Secretary. The 

selection of Henry proved to be a wise one. “Henry’s insight 

enabled him to sense the spirit and the intent of Smithsonian’s 

bequest and to project the donor’s idealism into the fabric of 

the Institution.” During his tenure, Henry “imposed on the 

Institution a sound and well-pondered plan of organization; 

and he was able serve long enough (32 years, until his death 

in 1878) to see it fi rmly established, his ideas bearing fruit, 

and the Smithsonian taking a secure place in the scientifi c 

and cultural life of the nation and building up a favorable 

place in the public mind.”8

During the ensuing century, Congress amended and 

added to the statutory authority of the Smithsonian Institution on several occasions.

Committee Assumes Responsibility

From its inception until the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, jurisdiction over the Smithsonian 

Institution was under the jurisdiction of Joint Committee 

on the Library. In 1947, the newly created Committee on 

House Administration assumed responsibility for matters 

relating to the Institution, except for “measures relating to 

the construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care 

of the [Smithsonian’s] buildings and grounds.” Responsibility 

for these latter matters was given to the House Committee on 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 413

Public Works.9 Th at jurisdiction was transferred to the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the 104th 

Congress (1995–1996).

Consistent with its legislative jurisdiction, the Committee 

was given the authority to conduct oversight on any activity 

related to the operations and activities of Smithsonian Institution10 “to determine whether laws and programs . . . are being 

implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of 

Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, 

or eliminated.”11 Th e House Committee on Appropriations 

considers legislation related to the appropriation of funds to 

carry out the Smithsonian’s publicly-funded activities.

Oversight Hearings.

1970. By far the most comprehensive congressional review of 

the Smithsonian’s activities in more than a century occurred 

in July 1970. During seven days of oversight hearings, the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials examined the 

administration of the Institution and the development and 

implementation of its policies, benefi ts to the public, and 

future priorities. Th e Subcommittee’s “inquiry was designed 

to cover the history of the [Smithsonian Institution] from 

its creation in 1846 to the present and to gain a thorough 

understanding of its operations, purposes, and policies—past, 

present, and future.”12 Witnesses included S. Dillon Ripley, 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and three dozen 

other Smithsonian employees. Following the hearing, the 

Committee reported that the proceedings “supported the 

Subcommittee’s view of the Smithsonian’s importance to 

the Nation.” Consequently, the Committee recommended 

“that Congress revitalize its interest in the Smithsonian and 

continue to provide the Smithsonian with the means eff ectively to carry out its mandate ‘to provide for the increase and 

diff usion of knowledge among men.’”13

1992. Two decades later, in 1992, the Subcommittee 

on Libraries and Memorials held another oversight hearing to determine whether: (1) malfeasance in the disbursement of federal funds at the Smithsonian had occurred and 

(2) an attempt had been made by the Smithsonian to evade 

legitimate congressional oversight. Events prior to the hearing suggested that the Subcommittee had not, “despite a 

written request,” been “kept apprised of the Institution’s 

response and payments” of more than $400,000 in legal fees 

for defending Dr. Robert M. Mitchell, a zoologist on detail 

to the Smithsonian from the Department of the Interior’s 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Th e Subcommittee determined 

that the Smithsonian had in this instance “surreptitiously 

altered its method of disbursing legal funds and resumed 

payments without informing” them. Following testimony 

by the Smithsonian Inspector General, the Secretary of the 

Smithsonian, and General Accounting Offi ce offi cials, Chairman William Clay of Missouri announced that the Subcommittee had concluded “that the actions of the Smithsonian 

Institution were ill-advised and inappropriate.” Th e panel 

recommended the Smithsonian “immediately return all federal funds expended on Mr. Mitchell’s behalf to the appropriate Smithsonian Federal account,” “review and revamp 

the procedures under which it interacts and responds to this 

subcommittee,” and “reevaluate its procedures and policies 

regarding the indemnifi cation of legal expenses for temporary 

or peripheral employees.” Also, the Subcommittee requested 

the Secretary or Under Secretary of the Smithsonian to brief 

them within six months on the Institution’s progress in implementing the recommendations.14

2003. A third oversight hearing on the operations of the 

Smithsonian was held by the Subcommittee on Libraries and 

Memorials in 2003. Th e March 5 hearing focused on four 

specifi c areas: (1) major projects underway or in development 

at the Smithsonian; (2) a report recently submitted by the 

Smithsonian Science Commission that was tasked with looking at science and science priorities at the Smithsonian; (3) 

management at the National Zoo, publicized animal deaths 

at the Zoo, and corrective actions taken; and (4) overall management and future priorities of the Smithsonian.15

2006. Focusing on a very diff erent concern, the Committee held an oversight hearing in May 2006 “on the operations and investments of the Smithsonian Institution, as well 

as the role Smithsonian Business Ventures (SBV)16 served in 

furthering the Institution’s mission as “an establishment for 
414 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

the increase and diff usion of knowledge.” A second objective 

of the hearing, according to Committee Chairman Vernon 

Ehlers, was to better understand the management philosophy 

of Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian, and 

“to bring clarity and transparency to the process used by the 

Smithsonian in entering into [its] contract with CBS/Showtime.” Th e semi-exclusive television contract the Smithsonian 

had made with Showtime Networks Inc., in March 2006, 

allowed Showtime to create “Smithsonian on Demand,” a 

commercial free cable station whose programming would 

feature Smithsonian programs and collections. Th e agreement aroused criticism because it coalesced a private company with the Smithsonian, with 90% of “Smithsonian on 

Demand” owned by Showtime and the remaining 10% by 

the Smithsonian.

As part of the agreement, the new network was to have 

the right of fi rst refusal of commercial documentaries that 

relied signifi cantly on the museum’s archives, curators, and 

scientists. Th e Committee expressed particular misgivings 

about a confi dentiality clause that made it diffi cult to gain 

access to a complete version of the contract, and questioned 

Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian, and members of his staff at some length regarding the propriety of the 

contract’s 30-year length and the restrictions it places on “fi lm 

makers, rival networks, journalists and scholars” seeking 

access to the Smithsonian’s resources.17

2007. Shortly after the 110th Congress convened, “a 

series of interlocking scandals, resignations and administrative upheavals suddenly hit the Smithsonian generating a 

torrent of congressional inquiries and continuous negative 

press coverage. Th ese events precipitated a historic revamping of the Smithsonian’s governance structure,” prompted “a 

move toward greater transparency,” and led to “replacement 

of senior management personnel.”18

As the internal transformation at the Smithsonian 

unfolded, the “Committee conducted a wide range of oversight of these changes, including consultation with the House 

Members who serve[d] as Smithsonian regents, private briefings, staff meetings and public hearings. In each context, the 

Committee cautioned the Board of Regents that its eff orts” 

to eff ect change “could not become an excuse for altering core 

policies of free access by the American public to Smithsonian museums, retreating from commitments to continue its 

unique scientifi c research projects, or neglecting the safety of 

the visiting public in its sometimes decrepit and unfunded 

facilities.” The Committee strongly supported the Independent Review Committee appointed by the Smithsonian 

regents to issue reform recommendations.19

Amidst congressional concerns that the Smithsonian 

had “veered off course in recent years,” the Committee on 

House Administration held on oversight hearing on August 

1, 2007, on “Th e Smithsonian in Transition.” Th e focal point 

of the hearing was a discussion on the recommendations of 

the Institution’s Governance Committee and an Independent 

Review Committee that were designed to ensure more eff ective oversight, accountability, and transparency by the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents as well as its senior management. 

During the hearing the Committee heard testimony from 

Representative Doris O. Matsui, a member of the Governance 

Committee, Smithsonian Board of Regents; Charles A. Bowsher, chairman of the Independent Review Committee; Dr. 

Christian Samper, Acting Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; 

and Anne Sprightley Ryan, Inspector General, Smithsonian 

Institution.20 “Openness and transparency have to be the 

watchwords for the future of this institution,” said former 

Comptroller General Bowsher. Acting Secretary Samper 

told the Committee that he had appointed a task force to 

study the “fundamental questions” surrounding Smithsonian’s Business Ventures, the institution’s business unit. In the 

meantime, Smithsonian offi cials were working to ensure the 

policies between the institution and the business unit were 

the same, Bowsher added.21

Prior to the 110th Congress, the Committee had “routinely urged House passage under suspension of rules and 

without formal committee action the recommendations of 

the Board of Regents to fi ll nine positions as citizen regents 

of the Smithsonian.” Given that the Smithsonian “Board of 

Regents as a part-time body had been primarily responsible 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 415

for lax internal oversight,” the Committee decided “to no 

longer give citizen regent candidates proposed by the Board 

automatic approval for appointments (or reappointments).” 

Th e Committee “instituted a practice of meeting informally with candidates for the nine regent positions before 

allowing a vote by the House on whether to appoint them 

by joint resolution.”22

2009. On April 1, 2009, the Committee held an oversight hearing that focused on concerns raised by a March 15 

Washington Post article that raised “issues relating to public 

safety and the possible release of asbestos during construction 

activities at the world’s most visited museum, the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum.” At the outset of the 

hearing, Committee chair Robert A. Brady expressed concern 

“about how well the Smithsonian has been complying with 

Federal laws and best practices in controlling asbestos and 

other hazardous substances that staff and the visiting public 

may be exposed to.”23

The Committee heard testimony from Smithsonian 

Secretary, Dr. G. Wayne Clough, and several experts on 

treatment of hazardous materials. Secretary Clough made 

a commitment to conduct a complete review of asbestos 

safety policies and procedures using an independent outside 

workplace safety expert, and take several other administrative actions designed to “respond to concerns about asbestos 

exposure and preclude any future problems.”24 Th e experts 

who testifi ed to the Committee that the Smithsonian’s written asbestos control policy was complete and comprehensive, 

but there had been serious defi ciencies in its implementation 

over a prolonged period of time.25

Th e review promised by Secretary Clough “was completed 

in November 2009 by an outside consultant.” Th e study “urged 

improvement in the Smithsonian Institution’s handling of 

asbestos in its buildings, changes in procedures and training, 

and inspections throughout the various buildings in the complex.” Richard Pullman, the Air and Space Museum exhibit 

specialist whose complaint about asbestos prompted the initial 

concern ultimately “received a settlement from the Smithsonian, but the Institution did not admit liability.”26

Legislative Action

During the six decades since the Committee assumed its 

jurisdictional responsibilities over the Smithsonian, the Institution has continued to broaden its scope, which in 2006 

included 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 

research facilities throughout the United States and around 

the world, plus 144 affi liated museums and more than 400 

buildings. Th ese activities have aff orded the Committee a 

diverse array of opportunities to consider signifi cant legislative proposals involving the Institution.

Appointment of Board of Regents. The most frequently recurring responsibility of the Committee has been 

the consideration of resolutions calling for the appointment 

of members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents.27

Paleontological Investigations. One of the fi rst Smithsonian-related bills considered by the Committee was in the 

81st Congress (1949–1950), when it reported, with amendments, legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Smithsonian to cooperate with any state, educational institution, or 

scientifi c organization in the United States for continuing 

paleontological investigations. Th e bill, which became law 

on August 15, 1949, specifi cally addressed the excavation 

and preservation of fossil remains in areas that would be 

fl ooded by the construction of government dams or otherwise be made unavailable for such investigations because 

of such construction. Th e Committee in reporting the bill 

explained that the need for this legislation grew out of an 

extensive fl ood control program and other activities involving 

the construction of dams in the river systems throughout the 

United States. In many localities, the Committee found, the 

reservoirs formed would permanently inundate important 

fossil formations.28

Ethnological Research on the American Indian. Also 

during the 81st Congress, the Committee reported legislation 

that provided for cooperation by the Smithsonian Institution 

with state, educational, and scientifi c organizations in the 

United States for continuing research on American Indians. 

Th e purpose of this legislation was “to give permanent statutory authorization to activities of the Smithsonian Institution 
416 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

which [had] been carried on with continuous congressional 

approval for upwards of 70 years, [and] to place these activities on the same legal basis” as their permanent activities. 

Following House and Senate concurrence, President Truman 

signed the bill on August 22, 1949.29

Special Smithsonian Police. Legislation enhancing the 

security of the Smithsonian Institution and its collections 

was reported by the Committee on July 12, 1951, and passed 

the House the same day. Th e bill authorized the Secretary of 

the Smithsonian and the Trustees of the National Gallery of 

Art, or authorized representatives, to designate employees as 

special police responsible for the protection of the Smithsonian’s buildings, grounds, and exhibits. It also authorized the 

Secretary and Trustees to prescribe regulations to protect the 

property of the Smithsonian and the National Gallery. Th e 

measure made it unlawful for anyone other than authorized 

employees to handle exhibited objects or to injure or remove 

objects on exhibit or plants on its property. Subsequently, a 

Senate companion bill, with amendments, was passed by that 

chamber, the House agreed to the Senate amendments, and 

the bill was enacted on October 24, 1951.30 Th irteen years 

later, as the new Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology was about to be occupied, the 1951 act was amended 

to extend police coverage to this additional facility as well. 

Preceding passage of the amending legislation, the Committee favorably reported the bill.31

National Collection of Fine Arts and National Portrait Gallery. As the Smithsonian Institution continued 

to grow, the need for additional space for its collections 

prompted legislation in 1958 calling for the transfer of 

the Old Patent Offi ce Building to the Smithsonian. Built 

between 1836 and 1867, the landmark building housed the 

Patient Offi ce until 1932, and subsequently the Civil Service 

Commission. It was derelict and threatened with demolition 

prior to the transfer to the Smithsonian.

It was proposed that the building be used to house 

the collections of the National Collection of Fine Arts and 

the National Portrait Gallery, which had grown to such an 

extent that they could no longer safely be housed together in 

their existing location. Th e Committee favorably reported a 

bill authorizing the transfer, and the House concurred. Th e 

House proceedings, however, were subsequently vacated, 

and both the Senate and House approved a similar Senate 

measure, which became law on March 28, 1958.32 Legislation 

offi cially designating the National Portrait Gallery as a bureau 

of the Smithsonian Institution was reported by the Committee on June 28, 1961, and then superseded by a similar Senate 

bill. Th e Senate measure passed the House with amendments 

on April 16, 1962. Th e following day, the Senate agreed to 

the House amendments, and the bill was enacted near the 

end of the month.33

Proposed National Armed Forces Museum. The 

Smithsonian took another step toward furthering the scope 

of its exhibits in 1961, after the Committee reported legislation establishing a National Armed Forces Museum Advisory 

Board. Th e Board was charged with providing advice and 

assistance to the Smithsonian regents on matters concerning 

the portrayal of contributions made by the Armed Forces of 

the United States to American society and culture. Th e measure stipulated that the Smithsonian was to commemorate 

and display those contributions; interpret through dramatic 

displays signifi cant current problems aff ecting the Nation’s 

security; and establish a study center for scholarly research 

into the meaning of war, its eff ect on civilization, and the role 

of the Armed Forces in maintaining a just and lasting peace 

by providing a powerful deterrent to war. In order to facilitate 

this mandate, the Smithsonian was directed, with the advice 

and consent of the Board, to proceed with the acquisition of 

land and property. Soon after the Committee reported the 

bill, it was approved by both chambers and became law.34

Employment of Aliens Having Scientifi c or Technical Capabilities. Th ree years later, in 1964, the Committee 

reported legislation to address the Smithsonian’s growing 

need for individuals with scientific and technical backgrounds. Th e bill authorized the Institution to employ aliens, 

subject to adequate security and other investigations, when 

it was determined that a qualifi ed U.S. citizen would not be 

available for a particular position. Th e Committee’s report 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 417

emphasized that existing restrictions concerning the hiring 

of aliens would “cause the Institution to be unable to hire 

marine taxonomists necessary for expanded oceanographic 

research programs.” On August 31, 1964, President Johnson 

signed the bill into law.35

Development of the National Air and Space Museum.

Perhaps the Committee’s longest running involvement with 

the development of a museum concept was its role in the planning of the National Air and Space Museum on the National 

Mall and its companion facility, the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy 

Center, near Washington Dulles International Airport.

Creation of the National Air Museum. In 1946, shortly 

before the Committee was established, Congress provided 

for the creation of the National Air Museum as part of the 

Smithsonian Institution.36 Eighteen years later, in August 

1964, the Subcommittee on Printing and Memorials became 

involved in the eff ort to broaden the Museum’s mission with a 

hearing on proposed amendments to the original legislation. 

The bill (S. 602, 88th Congress), which had already been 

passed by the Senate, sought to include space objects under 

the museum’s jurisdiction and to change the museum’s name 

to the National Aeronautical and Space Museum. Following 

the hearing, the full Committee “disapproved” the bill.37

Mission Broadened/Name Changed. Within two 

years, however, the Committee favorably reported legislation changing the name of the National Air Museum to the 

National Air and Space Museum. Th is bill delegated to the 

new entity, with the advice of a museum board, responsibility 

for memorializing the national development of aviation and 

space fl ight; collecting, preserving, and displaying aeronautical and space fl ight equipment of historical interest and 

signifi cance; serving as a repository for scientifi c equipment 

and data pertaining to the development of aviation and space 

fl ight; and providing educational material for the historic 

study of aviation and space fl ight. In July 1966 the bill was 

signed by the President.38

Expansion of the National Air and Space Museum. 

Early in the 1990s, Smithsonian personnel returned to 

Capitol Hill to ask for an additional venue to house its 

ever expanding air and space collections. In July 1991, the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials held a hearing 

on legislation authorizing the Smithsonian Institution to 

plan and design an extension to the National Air and Space 

Museum (NASM) at Dulles International Airport. Th e hearing focused on the Smithsonian’s need for the extension and 

the method employed in its selection of Dulles. “Although 

there appeared to be overwhelming support for an annex 

to the Air and Space Museum, questions were raised by the 

General Accounting Offi ce (GAO) as to the thoroughness 

and fairness of the Institution’s process in the selection of 

Dulles Airport over other competing sites.” Prior to the hearing, however, “GAO revised its fi ndings and testifi ed at the 

hearing that the Smithsonian could justify its decision to 

select Dulles as the site of the NASM extension.” While the 

“Subcommittee found that it was essential that additional 

storage, preservation, and exhibition space be acquired for the 

National Air and Space Museum,” it had become increasingly 

concerned over the equitability of the site selection process.” 

Th e hearing “opened discussion between the Smithsonian 

and parties interested in acquiring the NASM extension. 

More importantly, these discussions led to the Institution 

exploring the possibility of sharing and exhibiting its artifacts 

and expanding or constructing new museums outside of the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.”39

A second Subcommittee hearing in October 1991 

focused on a proposal to create the National Air and Space 

Advisory Panel. Its duties would be to: (1) establish and conduct a national competition for the evaluation of possible 

expansion sites for the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space 

Museum; and (2) develop expansion site selection criteria. 

Several reasons were off ered for the new facility. Neither the 

National Air and Space Museum on the Mall nor its Paul 

E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility in 

Suitland, Maryland, had suffi cient space to properly house 

or exhibit the artifacts already in its collections.” Smithsonian 

staff told the Subcommittee that it was virtually impossible 

to transport very large air and spacecraft promised to the 

Museum to either of its present sites, and that the physical 
418 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

integrity of 80% of the national collections housed in the 

Garber Facility was compromised by the deterioration of its 

overcrowded warehouses and the absence of proper environmental controls.40

No action was taken on the fi rst proposal. Th e Committee favorably reported an amended version of the second bill 

a year later, but it failed to pass the House under suspension 

of the rules.

In March 1993, the Subcommittee held a third hearing 

on the National Air and Space Museum extension. Th ese 

latter proceedings, instead of focusing on the creation of 

an advisory panel that would be responsible for a national 

competition to evaluate possible sites for the National Air and 

Space Museum extension, centered on the option of delegating authority to the Smithsonian Board of Regents to plan 

and build an extension of the Museum at Dulles International 

Airport. Following the hearing, the full Committee reported 

an amended bill by voice vote and, following House and 

Senate concurrence, the bill became law in August 1993.41

National Zoo. A far diff erent Smithsonian matter captured the attention of the Committee in 1966, when an issue 

involving the National Zoological Park in Washington, DC, 

needed resolution. As the popularity of the Zoo continued 

to grow after Congress placed it under the direction of the 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution in 1890,42 so did the 

opportunity for private individuals and nonprofi t organizations to become involved in associated educational activities.

It was within this context that the Committee reported, 

and Congress approved, legislation authorizing the Smithsonian to negotiate agreements granting concessions at the Zoo 

to nonprofi t scientifi c, educational, and historical organizations, and to accept the voluntary services of such organizations as well as the voluntary services of individuals. Th e 

legislation was prompted by a “recent Comptroller General 

decision (42 Comp. Gen. 651, May 27, 1963) that held that 

the Smithsonian could not grant the Friends of the National 

Zoological Park, a nonprofi t organization promoting educational purposes of the zoo, the privilege of conducting a 

coin-operated audio tour lecture system concession.” Th e 

proceeds from the concession, the Committee reported, “were 

to be used exclusively for educational purposes at the National 

Zoological Park.”43

Th e Zoo was the subject of another hearing in 2003, 

when Zoo director, Lucy H. Spelman, and other Smithsonian 

offi cials appeared before the Subcommittee on Libraries and 

Memorials to answer questions “about why so many of the 

animals [had] died under her watch.” Afterwards, Smithsonian offi cials and the Committee reached agreement on new 

oversight procedures for the Zoo.44

National Museum Act. A desire to “give recognition to 

the Nation’s museums as signifi cant cultural and educational 

institutions,” and “increase the Smithsonian’s capability to 

advise and assist these museums . . . through direct cooperation with them,” moved Congress in 1966 to pass the 

National Museum Act. Under the new law, the Director of 

the National Museum,45 under the direction of the Secretary 

of the Smithsonian, was to: (1) cooperate with museums 

and their professional organizations in a continuing study 

of museum problems and opportunities, both in the United 

States and abroad; (2) prepare and carry out programs for 

training career employees in museum practices in cooperation with museums and their professional organizations; 

(3) prepare and distribute signifi cant museum publications; 

(4) perform research on, and otherwise contribute to, the 

development of museum techniques; (5) cooperate with government departments and agencies operating, assisting, or 

otherwise concerned with museums; and (6) report annually 

to Congress on these activities. Prior to passage, the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials held two days of hearings 

on the bill, and the full Committee favorably reported it. 

After the Senate passed a diff erent version, the two chambers 

agreed to a conference report on the measure which became 

law in 1966.46

Eight years later, in 1974, Congress approved legislation amending the National Museum Act. Th e adjustment 

was designed “to strengthen the Smithsonian’s program in 

museum conservation techniques and training—a program 

which has national signifi cance to the preservation of the 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 419

great variety of artifacts and objects which comprise our 

national heritage and form the basis of our knowledge of 

the past.” Th e act also authorized a $1million annual appropriation to the Smithsonian for the purposes of the National 

Museum Act for FY1975, FY1976, and FY 1977. Before 

reporting the bill, the Committee added amendments, which 

were incorporated into the fi nal law.47 In 1976, the Committee favorably reported legislation providing another $1 

million authorization for FY1978, FY1979, and FY1980, 

respectively. Th e Senate version of this latter bill was subsequently passed in lieu of the House version considered and 

reported by the Committee.48

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In 1968, Congress established in the Smithsonian Institution 

a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as a 

“living institution expressing” Wilson’s “ideals and concerns,” 

and as “memorial to his accomplishments as the twentyeighth President of the United States, a distinguished scholar, 

an outstanding university president, and a brilliant advocate 

of international understanding.” During the consideration 

of that legislation, the Committee “strongly endorse[d] the 

concept of an International Center for Scholars . . . as an 

appropriate living memorial to Woodrow Wilson.” After the 

House passed the bill, those proceedings were vacated, and 

the House passed the Senate version of the bill. After the 

Senate accepted House amendments, the bill was enacted on 

October 24.49 A decade later, Congress established the Hubert 

H. Humphrey Fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson Center 

and created a trust fund to provide a stipend for the annual 

fellowship. Th e Committee reported the bill establishing the 

fellowship in April 1978, and it became law a month and a 

half later.50

Smithsonian Museum Support Facility. In 1975, 

Congress passed legislation authorizing the Smithsonian to 

prepare plans for museum support facilities that were “to be 

used for (1) the care, curation, conservation, deposit, preparation, and study of the national collections of scientifi c, 

historic, and artistic objects, specimens, and artifacts; (2) 

the related documentation of such collections”; and (3) “the 

training of museum conservators.” Th e law stipulated that the 

support facilities be located in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area,” but not on the Mall. Th e House version of the 

bill was favorably reported by the Committee and passed by 

the House. In justifying the need for the facility, the Committee wrote, that the Smithsonian “buildings were constructed 

primarily for exhibition in an area convenient to visitors, 

and space on the Mall is far too limited and valuable to be 

devoted primarily to other than exhibition purposes.” Th e 

initial House proceedings were subsequently vacated when 

the Senate version of the bill was amended by the House. Th e 

Senate agreed to the House amendments before it was signed 

into law by the President.51

Allowing for a Larger Footprint on the National 

Mall. Also in 1975, Congress reserved additional land on 

the National Mall “for future public uses of the Smithsonian,” in the area bounded by Th ird Street, Maryland 

Avenue, Fourth Street, and Jeff erson Drive in the District 

of Columbia. Th e law stipulated that no portion of the site, 

however, could be used “unless such use is fi rst approved by 

the Congress.” Th e Committee favorably reported the bill 

two months prior to enactment.52

Anticipating even further growth of the Smithsonian, 

Congress, in 1979, considered and passed legislation authorizing the Smithsonian to plan for the development of the area 

south of the original Smithsonian Institution Building, and 

authorized $500,000 for that planning.53 Although the Committee was discharged from consideration of the bill, it did 

report legislation two years later that authorized an additional 

$500,000 to plan for the development of the area. No further 

action was taken on the latter measure.54

Museum of African Art. In October 1978, Congress 

authorized the Smithsonian to acquire the land, collections 

of works of art, and other assets and property of the Museum 

of African Art in Washington, DC. Th e previous August, 

the Committee favorably reported the bill. At the time, the 

Museum of African Art, which had been founded in 1964, 

was located on Capitol Hill “in a series of 19th century townhouses including the fi rst Washington residence of Frederick 
420 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Douglass.” Today, the National Museum of African Art is 

located on the National Mall between the Smithsonian’s 

Arts and Industries Building and the Sackler Gallery of Art.55

Adjustment of Interest Rate on Smithsonian Funds 

in the Treasury. Under the act of August 10, 1846, which 

established the Smithsonian Institution, the funds derived 

from the bequest of James Smithson were deposited with 

the U.S. Treasury as a permanent loan that was to receive 

a payment of six percent annually. Th at percentage remain 

unchanged until 1982, when an amendment, introduced and 

reported by the Committee, became law. Its purpose was to 

ensure that the Smithsonian received a “rate of return that 

is approximately equal to the rate paid by the Treasury on 

its marketable borrowings of comparable maturities.” Th e 

Committee in its report explained that: “Infl ation and interest 

rates have created circumstances in which the statutory rate 

is substantially below current market rates on outstanding 

obligations of the United States. Th is legislation is required 

to adjust the rate paid on the Smithsonian’s permanent loan 

at the Treasury.”56

Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory. Subsequently, 

the Committee in 1983 favorably reported legislation authorizing the Smithsonian to purchase four acres of land it had 

been leasing in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Th e site was to 

be used for construction of the permanent headquarters of the 

Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory, which is maintained and 

operated by the Smithsonian on Mount Hopkins, near Amado, 

Arizona. Th e bill became law in August of the same year.57

DC General Post Offi ce Building Acquired. In August 

1984, the Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration to consider a bill 

authorizing the Administrator of the General Services Administration to transfer the DC General Post Offi ce Building to 

the Smithsonian Institution for certain art galleries and related 

functions. Previously, the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, to which the bill had been jointly referred, had 

held hearings on the bill and reported it. On August 18, the 

bill was called up by the House under suspension of the rules 

and passed by a voice vote, was approved by the Senate two 

months later, and became law in October, 1984.58

A subsequent attempt by the Smithsonian in 1991 to 

acquire an Administrative Service Center (ASC) in Washington, DC, was favorably reported by the Subcommittee 

on Libraries and Memorials on October 23, following an 

October 1 hearing. Th e Smithsonian was interested in securing the ASC as an “off -mail facility for the long-term, general 

purpose, light industrial warehouse and offi ce needs of the 

Institution.” Th e full Committee took no further action.59

Cooper-Hewitt Museum. On August 1, 1985, the 

Task Force on Libraries and Memorials held a hearing on a 

bill authorizing the Smithsonian to construct, expand, and 

renovate facilities at the Cooper Hewitt (National Design) 

Museum in New York City, which become a part of the 

Smithsonian in 1967. Following the hearing, the Committee favorably reported an amended bill, but no further action 

was taken on the measure. A similar Senate bill pending in 

the Senate failed to receive the two-thirds vote required to 

suspend the rules so it could be passed by the House.60

National Museum of the American Indian. Legislation establishing a National Museum of the American Indian 

within the Smithsonian, as a living memorial to Native Americans and their traditions, was signed into law in November 

1989. Several months earlier, on March 9 and July 20, the 

Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs, and House Committee 

on Public Works and Transportation subcommittee held 

joint hearings on the bill. Both the House Administration 

and Public Works Committees favorably reported the bill.61

Subsequently, in 1996, the Committee on House Oversight favorably reported, as did the House Committee on 

Resources, legislation introduced in the Senate that amended 

the National Museum of the American Indian Act to require 

the Smithsonian Institution to: (1) complete the inventory of 

Indian human remains and Indian funerary objects in the 

possession or control of the Smithsonian Institution by June 

1998; (2) provide a written “summary of funerary objects, 

sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony;” and (3) 

expedite the repatriation of such objects “where a requesting Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization [could] 

show cultural affi liation.” Th e House subsequently passed 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 421

the bill under suspension of the rules. It was signed into law 

on October 9.62

National Museum of African American History 

and Culture. Far more protracted was the movement for 

a National African American Museum. “During the early 

1980s, discussions began in many sectors of the [B]lack community regarding the possibility of establishing a National 

African American Museum.” On October 21, 1986, a “Sense 

of the Congress” resolution (H. Con. Res. 666, 99th Congress) was signed into law and stated that Congress encouraged establishment of “a commemorative structure within the 

National Parks Service, or on other Federal lands dedicated 

to the promotion of understanding, knowledge, opportunity 

and equality of all people.”63 Meanwhile, the Smithsonian 

Institution, between 1985 and 1989, instituted 12 projects 

or exhibits focusing on African Americans.64 In May 1989, 

the “Smithsonian’s Board of Regents gave general approval 

to the establishment” within the Institution of “a special unit 

devoted to issues of African American history, art, and culture 

that might be addressed by display, research, collecting, and 

outreach activities.”65

In September of the same year, the Subcommittee on 

Libraries and Memorials held an oversight hearing on the 

establishment of an African American Heritage Memorial 

Museum. “Th e purpose of the hearing was to provide a forum 

for proponents of the National African American [Heritage 

Memorial] Museum and for focusing both public and Congressional attention on the issue.” Th e hearing also off ered an 

opportunity to publicly examine H.R. 1570, a bill referred to 

the Subcommittee that proposed the creation of the National 

African American Museum on the Mall in Washington, DC. 

At the hearing the Subcommittee received testimony 

from members of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution 

and other concerned federal agencies, historians, artists, and 

various members of the African American community. Most 

witnesses at the hearing supported the idea of an African 

American Museum. Robert McCormick Adams, Secretary 

of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed concern over what 

form an African American presence on the Mall should take, 

and other witnesses expressed doubt as to the availability of 

space on the Mall for another museum. Another witness, 

Robert E. Gresham, Assistant Director of the National Capital Planning Commission, the agency responsible for developing the Mall, recommended that any legislation to establish 

the National African American Museum not limit itself to 

the technical boundaries of the Mall. Further, Mr. Gresham 

explained that the Mall actually encompasses three areas: the 

Mall proper, the extended Mall, and the monumental core.66

Th ree weeks later, on “October 11, 1989, in response to 

the Subcommittee’s hearing, a day-long session was held by the 

Smithsonian to discuss the possibility of establishing a separate physical presence dedicated to African American history, 

art, and culture on the Mall. Smithsonian staff and external 

advisors took part in the discussion.” Th e session “focused 

on the need to increase African American staff , programs, 

and collections within existing bureaus and the need to begin 

program discussions about a distinct African American presence within the Smithsonian.” Near the end of the year, “in an 

eff ort to further crystallize its perspective regarding the initiatives addressed in the Subcommittee’s hearing, the Smithsonian Institution announced the appointment of a 22-member 

advisory board . . . to examine whether an African American 

presence on the Mall should be realized as a wing of an existing 

museum or as a free-standing entity, and to consider whether 

it should be a collecting museum, a gallery, a research center 

or some combination of these elements.”67

The African-American Institutional Study Advisory 

Board’s 120-page report of May 1991, “recommended that 

a National African American Museum be established at the 

Smithsonian and that it be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research and exhibition of materials that refl ect the 

breadth and the experiences of Black Americans. It also recommended that the location be in a building on the National 

Mall, and that it be governed by a board of trustees who 

would report to the Smithsonian board of trustees.” Later the 

same month, the “Smithsonian’s board of regents endorsed in 

principle the fi ndings of the committee.”68

In April 1992, both the Subcommittee on Libraries and 

Memorials, and the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and 

Grounds of the House Committee on Public Works and 
422 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Transportation, held hearings on a proposal to establish a 

National African American Museum in the Smithsonian 

Institution. Th e Public Works Committee reported the bill, 

but the House took no further action in the 102nd Congress.69

Eleven months later, in March 1993, during the 103rd Congress, the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials held 

a second hearing on the proposal, and favorably reported 

that bill in June. Th e House Committee on Public Works 

and Transportation also held hearings on the proposal and 

reported the bill. Although the bill passed the House in late 

June 1993, no further action was taken by the end of the 

103rd Congress.70

Finally in December 2001, legislation was signed into 

law establishing a National Museum of African American 

History and Cultural Plan for Action Presidential Commission to develop a plan for the establishment and maintenance 

of an African American History and Culture Museum in 

Washington, DC. Prior to enactment, the bill was jointly 

referred to the Committee on House Administration, House 

Committee on Resources, and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subsequently, the House, on a 

motion to suspend the rules, passed the measure. Th e measure 

was enacted in December 2001.71

Similarly, in November 2003, a bill establishing within 

the Smithsonian Institution the National Museum of African 

American History and Culture was jointly referred to the 

Committee on House Administration, House Committee 

on Resources, and House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, but the House again passed the measure, by 

suspending the rules, without a report. Subsequently, the Senate also passed the bill, and President George W. Bush signed 

it into law.72 Th e new museum was charged with collecting, 

preserving, studying, and exhibiting African American historical and cultural material.

National Museum of the American Latino. During 

the 108th and 109th Congresses, four diff erent bills were introduced in the House to establish a commission to make recommendations to the President and Congress regarding the 

establishment and maintenance of a National Museum of the 

American Latino that would be located in Washington, DC, 

as part of the Smithsonian Institution.73 Th e Committee held 

hearings on one of the proposals (H.R. 4863, 108th Congress) 

in July 2004, and reported a second, amendment measure 

(H.R. 2134, 109th Congress), in July 2006. Th e Subcommittee on National Parks, House Committee on Resources, 

held hearings on the latter bill, and the full House Resources 

Committee also reported the bill that July.

Th e bill was subsequently passed under suspension of 

the rules by a voice vote on August 27, 2006.74 Th e Senate 

took no action on this bill or the Senate companion measure 

(S. 2475, 109th Congress) during the balance of the 109th 

Congress. Legislation (H.R. 512) calling for the creation of 

a commission to study the potential of a National Museum 

of the American Latino was again referred to the House 

Administration in the 110th Congress. Th at bill was considered and passed by the House under suspension of the 

Rules. Th e Senate, however, indefi nitely postponed fl oor 

consideration of H.R. 512, and instead passed, as did the 

House, provisions creating the commission as part of the 

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008.75

On May 5, 2011, the National Museum of the American Latino Commission submitted its fi nal report to the 

President and Congress. Th e commission’s fi ndings were 

reviewed by the Committee on House Administration following their release.76

Civil Rights History Project Act of 2008. In midSeptember 2008, the Committee on House Administration 

favorably reported an amended version of the Civil Rights 

Project Act of 2008.77 H.R. 998, directed the Library of 

Congress and the National Museum of African American 

History and Culture to work together to collect and preserve 

for posterity audio and video recordings of the memories and 

stories of individuals who participated in and witnessed fi rsthand the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s. 

Th e bill encouraged the Secretary of the Smithsonian and the 

Librarian of Congress to solicit and accept fi nancial and inkind donations for the project, and authorized appropriations 

to carry out the proposed act. Th e House passed the bill by 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 423

voice vote under suspension of rules on September 17, 2008.78

Th e Senate took no action on H.R. 998 in the 110th Congress.

Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization 

Act of 2008. Also on September 17, 2008, the House by 

voice vote passed the Smithsonian Institution Facilities Act 

of 2008, which authorizes: (1) $41 million to design and 

construct laboratory and support space for the Mathias Laboratory at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in 

Edgewater, Maryland; and (2) $14 million to construct laboratory space to accommodate the terrestrial research program 

of the Smithsonian tropical research institute in Gamboa, 

Panama.79 A week earlier, the bill (H.R. 6627) was favorably 

reported by the Committee on House Administration as well 

as the House Committee on Transportation. Despite favorably reporting the bill, the House Administration “criticized 

the Smithsonian for initiating planning and design activities 

without proper advance authorization from Congress.”80 Th e 

Senate took no action on H.R. 6627 in the 110th Congress.

Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009. On March 

25, 2009, the Committee ordered reported H.R. 586, which 

called for creation of a joint project under the direction of 

the Smithsonian Institution and the Library of Congress 

to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories 

and testimonials of individuals who participated in the civil 

rights movement. Th e bill was passed by the House on April 

22, 2010, by a vote of 422–0. H.R. 586 was passed by the 

Senate two days later without amendment by unanimous 

consent. It was signed into law (P.L. 111–19) on May 12, 

2009. “Successful implementation of the new law,” the Committee stressed, “demonstrated how the staff of the Museum 

of African American History and Culture could interact with 

other agencies and advance the Smithsonian’s mission even 

without the physical infrastructure of a building in place.”81

Construction of a Vehicle Maintenance Building 

in Suitland, Maryland. On December 3, 2009, the Committee favorably reported H.R. 3224, without amendment. 

Th e bill authorized $4 million for the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct a 

vehicle maintenance building in Suitland, Maryland, moving 

this activity from away from its less functional location at the 

National Zoological Park in downtown Washington, DC. 

Th e House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

had previously reported H.R. 3224 favorably in late September 2009. H.R. 3224 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote on December 8, 2009. Th e 

Senate took no action on H.R. 3224 in the 111th Congress.82

Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute 

Enhancement Act. Late in September 2010, the Committee favorably reported a bill (H.R. 5717) providing for the 

construction of new facilities for education at the Smithsonian’s research facility in Front Royal, Virginia, which is noted 

for its eff ort to preserve endangered species, in conjunction 

with George Mason University in Virginia. H.R. 5717 called 

for the Smithsonian to take ownership in 30 years of a building to be constructed on the site and funded by GMU. An 

amended version of H.R. 5717 was also favorably reported by 

the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

on September 20, 2010. Th e bill, as amended, was passed 

by the House under suspension of the rules by voice vote 

on September 28, 2010, but it failed to receive Senate fl oor 

consideration in the 111th Congress.83

National Library of Medicine

In a 1948 overview of the status of the Library of Congress as 

the National Library of Science, Librarian Luther H. Evans 

wrote, “as long as the Library of the Department of Agriculture and the Army Medical Library continue to maintain 

adequate collections in their respective fi elds and to discharge 

the national responsibility for research library service at a high 

level, the Library of Congress will not purchase extensively in 

the fi elds of agriculture and medicine, but will limit itself to the 

works that are necessary to maintain a thoroughly encyclopedic 

collection.”84 Th e statement refl ected long-standing Library 

practice, which did not change. Th ere had been, and would 

continue to be, cooperative working arrangements between 

the Library of Congress and the other two national libraries.

Th e National Agricultural Library began in 1862 as a 

departmental library for the newly established Department of 
424 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Agriculture,85 and became a national library 100 years later.86

Th e National Library of Education was mandated in 1994.87

Th e antecedents of the National Library of Medicine, however, 

trace to a much earlier era, when the Library of Congress was 

in its infancy. It took initial form as the personal collection 

of books and periodicals of Dr. Joseph Lovell, the Surgeon 

General of the United States Army from 1818 until his death 

in 1836, whereupon his library became the nucleus of the 

library of the Offi ce of the Surgeon General (OSG). Th ereafter, from 1836 until at least 1841, Lovell’s successors regularly 

sought $150 in their budgets for additional medical books. 

From 1866 until 1887, the OSG and its library were located 

at Ford’s Th eater in Washington, DC.88 Responding to public 

protest against its continued use as a theater after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the federal government 

purchased the playhouse and remodeled it for use as a depository and museum for the Army medical department.89 In 1887, 

the OSG library was relocated to its red brick building (razed 

in 1970 for the construction of the Hirshhorn Museum), built 

especially for it on the Washington Mall, and was denominated 

the Army Medical Library in 1922. Th irty years later, having 

functionally become the medical library of all three military 

branches, it was renamed the Armed Forces Medical Library.90

In February 1955, the Task Force on Federal Medical 

Services of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, chaired by former President 

Herbert C. Hoover, issued a report recommending the creation of a National Library of Medicine as a division of the 

Smithsonian Institution and transferring to this new library 

the collections of the Army Medical Library. Th e Task Force 

indicated that the proposed “National Library of Medicine 

must not be subordinate to any executive department; that, 

like a university library, it must have a status independent of 

the many groups it serves”; and observed that the “Library 

of Congress, which is a library primarily for the use of Congress, would present diffi culties of administration as well as 

differences of purpose” if made responsible for managing 

the envisioned national medical library.91 Th e parent Hoover 

Commission adopted the recommendations of the Task Force, 

saying the Army Medical Library “is in fact the National 

Library of Medicine of the United States,” and noted existing 

defi ciencies—lack of clear, statutorily specifi ed functions; 

ineff ective administrative structure; inadequate facilities; and 

poor fi nancial support—that could be addressed in creating 

the new national medical library.92

Receipt of the Hoover Commission’s Federal Medical 

Services report prompted the introduction of numerous bills 

in the House to establish the National Library of Medicine, 

many of which were referred to the Committee on House 

Administration. Initial hearings were held by the committee on June 19 and 26, 1956, which revealed that, while the 

urgent need for such a facility was undisputed, there was 

some disagreement regarding the location of the medical 

library—choices being Chicago, Boston, New York, or Washington, DC. Narrowing the choice to Chicago or Washington, the committee held a June 19 hearing on the Chicago 

option, followed by a June 26 proceeding on the Washington alternative.93 Meanwhile, a Senate bill establishing the 

National Library of Medicine was reported in late May, and 

was adopted by the Senate on June 11. Th ereafter, the measure 

was referred to the House, considered by another House committee, and reported in mid-July. A few days later, the House 

approved the bill, with amendments, and returned it to the 

Senate, which concurred to the House modifi cations on July 

29, clearing the legislation for President Eisenhower’s signature on August 3, 1956.94 Th e resulting National Library of 

Medicine Act transferred the Armed Forces Medical Library 

to the Public Health Service, renamed it the National Library 

of Medicine, and authorized the construction of a new building to house the library collections. A site on the acreage of the 

National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, was selected 

in 1957, and the facility was opened in April 1962.95

Monuments, Memorials, and Memorial Services

Origins and Development

“Monuments,” one author has aptly noted, “are history made 

visible. Th ey are shrines that celebrate the ideals, achievements, and heroes that existed in one moment in time. Th ey 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 425

commemorate singular individuals, heroic accomplishments, 

or the millions of lives swept away by war.” Monuments also 

“refl ect the politics of remembering, the subtle comparisons 

our bodies make when looking up or down at effi gies of others. Th e best of them are redemptive, allowing us to understand the past in a way that is meaningful in the present.”96

Even before the drafting of the Constitution, Congress 

has authorized the erection of monuments to commemorate 

the extraordinary contributions of individuals and groups, to 

memorialize “on-site battles vital to the nation’s establishment 

and survival, and to provide landscaped and solemn cemeteries for its historic dead.”97 In August of 1783, for example, 

the Continental Congress passed a resolution calling for 

the procurement of an equestrian statue of General George 

Washington, to be “erected at the place where the residence 

of Congress shall be established.”98

Th e concept of battlefi eld commemoration began two 

years earlier, in October 1781, when the Continental Congress, upon news of the surrender by Lord Cornwallis of his 

army at Yorktown, voted to erect “at York, Virginia, a marble 

column, adorned with emblems of the alliance between the 

United States” and France.99 No money, however, was appropriated for the column. A century passed before Congress 

fi nally appropriated $100,000 to erect the Yorktown column 

in accordance with the resolution of the Continental Congress.100 The column is today the centerpiece of Colonial 

National Historic Park at Yorktown.

During Congress’s fi rst century, at least fi ve diff erent 

House committees reported memorial legislation. A sampling 

of the consideration of those measures between 1789 and 

the 1889 reveals that the Committee on Ways and Means, 

Committee on the Library, Committee on Public Buildings, 

Committee on Military Aff airs, and Committee on the District of Columbia all, at least once, recommended passage of 

a memorial bill.101

By the mid-1880s, however, the House Committee on 

the Library was reporting most memorial bills. Over the next 

six decades, legislation reported by the Library Committee 

dealt with a broad range of memorial bills that provided for: 

• statues of William Penn and General Anthony Wayne 

(1886);

• a monument to medical reformer Samuel Hahnemann 

(1900);

• the purchase of a bronze portrait statue of George Washington (1900);

• statues of John Paul Jones, and Revolutionary War 

heroes Casimir Pulaski and Baron Steuben (1902);

• amendments to the Revised Statutes relative to placing 

statues and busts in National Statuary Hall (1908);

• a statue in memory of Jeanne d’Arc (1921);

• a statue of Edmund Burke, British statesman and political writer (1922);

• a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Gettysburg National 

Cemetery (1935); and

• a statue to Nathan Hale (1946).102

House Committee on Memorials (Memorial Services)

Although the House did eventually establish a Committee 

on Memorials on January 3, 1929, the committee, despite its 

name, had no jurisdiction over memorials, monuments, or 

statues. It instead was charged with arranging for the observance of a memorial day by the House in memory of the 

Members of the House and Senate who had died during the 

preceding session. In conjunction with this ceremonial duty, 

the Committee was also entrusted with the responsibility of 

arranging for publication of the proceedings of these memorial services.103

Since the First Congress, it had been the custom to 

hold a separate memorial service in honor of each Member 

who had died during the session or during the intervening 

recess. Over time, the practice became more formalized. 

Services were held in the Hall of the House, usually on 

a Sunday, and the proceedings were printed in the Congressional Record, and subsequently in book form. During 

early Congresses, when the membership of the House was 

small, deaths of Members were relatively infrequent. For 

more than a century, the practice of individual memorial 

services was adequate to its intended purpose: to provide an 

appropriate ceremony of remembrance for Members who 
426 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

had died. As the membership of the House grew, however, 

Members began to question whether the traditional memorial exercises should be modifi ed in some way.104

During the 67th Congress (1921–1923), 19 Representatives and 4 Senators died either during its 4 sessions or in the 

intervening adjournment. Th ere were a comparable number 

of deaths during the 68th and 69th Congresses (1923–1927). 

As the number of services increased, there was a perception 

that attendance was waning and the ceremonies were becoming perfunctory. Concerned Members felt that the traditional 

memorial programs were falling short of what was intended 

and “lacked a great deal of the dignity of a proper memorial 

day in the House of Representatives.”105

In response to these perceived inadequacies, the House 

Rules Committee on January 3, 1929, reported the following 

resolution:

Resolved, Th at Rule X of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives be amended by inserting a new 

paragraph following paragraph 40, which shall be 

known as 40a and shall read as follows: “40a. On 

memorials, to consist of three members.” Th at Rule 

XI be amended by inserting a new paragraph following paragraph 40, that shall be numbered 40a 

and shall read as follows: “40a. It shall be the duty 

of the Committee on Memorials to arrange a suitable program for each memorial day observed by 

the House of Representatives as a memorial day in 

memory of Members of the Senate and House of 

Representatives who have died during the preceding period, and to arrange for the publication of the 

proceedings thereof.106

The proposal enjoyed broad support, although some 

Members expressed reservations regarding the wisdom of 

establishing such a committee and abandoning the longstanding traditions of the House governing memorial exercises. At least one Member felt that as a standing committee 

it ought to consist of at least fi ve members instead of just three 

as proposed. Th is objection was countered by the argument 

that since the Committee had a single ceremonial task, three 

members would be competent to discharge the Committee’s 

duties.107 With only three members, the Committee was 

among the smallest in the House (at the time, most committees had 20 or more members). 

A second source of concern was the absence of any specifi city in the resolution regarding the details of the memorial service itself. Would it be suffi ciently dignifi ed? Th ese 

fears were allayed by assurances that the committee would 

take great care to produce a memorial service befi tting the 

solemnity of the occasion.108 Th e program designed by the 

committee for its fi rst memorial exercise on February 20, 

1929, seemed to quiet any doubts regarding the wisdom of 

establishing the Committee on Memorials.109

Th e Committee on Memorials operated from the 70th–

79th Congress (1927–1946), at which time its duties were 

absorbed by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Th e act gave 

the Committee on House Administration the responsibility 

of “arranging a suitable program for each day observed by the 

House of Representatives as a memorial in memory of Members of the Senate and House of Representatives who have died 

during the preceding period and to arrange for the publication 

of the proceedings thereof.”110 Th e duty of the Committee 

on House Administration to arrange for memorial services 

of Members was eliminated from the House Rules eff ective 

January 3, 1975, by H. Res. 988 (93rd Congress).111

Role of the Committee on House Administration

With the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946, which became operative at the beginning of the 80th

Congress (1947–1948), the Committee on House Administration assumed jurisdictional responsibility for legislation 

calling for the “erection of monuments to the memory of 

individuals.” The Committee retained this responsibility 

through the 103rd (1993–1994) Congress. At the beginning of 

the 104th Congress (1995–1996), jurisdiction over memorials 

was transferred to the House Committee on Resources.112

During the nearly half century that the Committee dealt 

with memorials, it reported more than 50 diff erent legislative 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 427

proposals that became law. Th ose enactments called for memorials in recognition of contributions ranging from the patriot 

military service to honors for former Presidents. Virtually all of 

those a cts authorized the establishment of memorials on federal 

land in the District of Columbia or its environs. 

Military Memorials

United States Marine Corps. Early in the fi rst year of its 

existence (1947), the Committee favorably reported legislation 

authorizing the erection of a memorial in Washington, DC, 

for the Marine Corps dead of all wars. An act extending the 

time limit for the beginning of the memorial from 5 to 10 years 

occupied the attention of the Committee in 1952.113 A year 

later, the Marine Corps Memorial act was amended to extend 

location authority of the memorial to include public land in 

the immediate vicinity of the District of Columbia, such as 

government-owned property adjacent to Arlington National 

Cemetery. Th e amendment was needed because the statutory 

authority for the memorial permitted its erection only on a site 

within the District of Columbia, and the Commission on Fine 

Arts had suggested that the memorial “should not be placed 

on the direct axis of the Mall and the Lincoln Memorial.”114

Th e Committee also approved a bill in the 80th Congress 

(1947–1948) calling for the establishment of a commission to 

formulate plans for the erection of a memorial in Chicago’s 

Grant Park to members of the United States Marine Corps.115

Gen. Robert E. Lee. A bill supported by the Committee 

in 1955 designated the Custis-Lee Mansion overlooking the 

Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery as a permanent memorial to Robert E. Lee.116

Gen. John J. Pershing. Authorization for the American Battle Monuments Commission to prepare plans and 

estimates for erection of a memorial to General John J. Pershing was reported favorably by the Committee in 1956. 

Th e Committee followed this initial action with hearings 

in March 1962 and July 1966, and then in August 1966 

reported legislation authorizing the Commission to provide 

for the memorial’s construction. President Johnson penned 

his signature to the bill in November 1966.117

Division Honors. In 1947, the Committee endorsed 

legislation authorizing the erection of a memorial for the 

dead of the First Infantry Division, United States Forces, 

World War II. Erection of a monument to the dead of the 

First Infantry in Vietnam was reported by the Committee 

in 1974.118

Th e only two memorials approved in the 85th Congress 

(1957–1958) paid tribute to the American troops who served 

in the Second Infantry Division in World War II and the 

101st Airborne Division in the Korean confl ict. Th e men 

of the 101st Airborne Division who fought in World War II 

and Vietnam were recognized by the Committee in the 94th 

Congress (1975–1976).119

Spanish-American War, Philippine Insurrection, 

and Chinese Relief Expedition. Authority was extended to 

the United States Spanish War Veterans in 1964 to erect a 

monument “in honor and commemoration of the men who 

served in the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection and 

the China Relief Expedition (1898–1902).”120

Troops Quartered in Capitol During Civil War. Also 

in 1964, the Committee authorized, and the House approved, 

placement of a memorial table in the House wing of the 

Capitol in honor of the troops quartered there during the 

Civil War.121

Korean War. Twelve years later, in 1986, the American 

Battle Monuments Commission was permitted to establish 

a memorial “to honor members of the Armed Forces who 

served in the Korean War, particularly those killed in action, 

are still missing in action, or were held as prisoners of war.” 

Th is act was amended in 1988, following favorable action by 

the Committee, to provide for the establishment of a fund 

in the Treasury “which shall be available to the American 

Battle Monuments Commission for expenses in establishing 

the memorial.”122

Black Revolutionary War Patriots. Also in 1986, the 

Committee lent its support to a bill authorizing the Black 

Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to establish a memorial “to honor the estimated fi ve thousand courageous slaves 

and free black persons who served as soldiers and sailors or 
428 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

provided civilian assistance during the Revolutionary War 

and to honor the countless black men, women, and children 

who ran away from slavery or fi led petitions with courts and 

legislators seeking their freedom.”123

Women in the Armed Forces. A third piece of legislation 

in 1986 sanctioned a Women in the Armed Forces Memorial.124

Vietnam Women’s Memorial. Th e Vietnam Women’s 

Memorial Project, Inc. grained approval in 1988 for establishing a memorial “to honor women of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served in the Republic of Vietnam during 

the Vietnam era.”125

Presidential Memorials

FDR Memorial. In 1955, the Committee endorsed legislation establishing a commission to formulate plans for a 

memorial to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.126 Four years 

later, it favorably reported a bill reserving a site for the FDR 

Memorial in West Potomac Park and authorized the Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission to hold a design 

national competition for the proposed memorial.127

Subsequently, Pedersen and Tilney of New York was 

selected as the winner of the FDR memorial design competition, and the Committee’s Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills 

and the Library held a hearing in June 1962 on two related 

legislative proposals—H.J. Res. 712 and H.J. Res. 713 (87th 

Congress, 1961–1962). Th e purpose of these resolutions was 

to authorize the FDR Commission to raise by public subscription the funds needed to construct the memorial. In addition, 

both proposals directed the FDR Commission to consult 

with the Commission on Fine Arts to determine whether 

the winning design might be changed or modifi ed to secure 

the Commission’s approval. Th e latter clause was necessitated 

because of considerable controversy and criticism of design, 

which was reported to Congress even though it lacked the 

Fine Arts Commission’s approval. Th e resolution also authorized $25,000 for use by the Commission. On August 8, 

1962, the Committee reported an amended version of H.J. 

Res. 712, which became law on October 18.128

Th e Committee returned to consideration of the FDR 

Memorial in 1965 with the reporting of H.R. 9495 (89th 

Congress). H.R. 9495 removed the time limit for the FDR 

Commission to fi le its report on another design for the memorial, which had been stipulated in the 1962 enactment. Th e 

1965 act also authorized an additional $100,000 for use by 

the Commission. Another $75,000 was authorized to be 

appropriated for the FDR Memorial fi ve years later.129

Finally, in 1982, the Committee approved and Congress 

concurred in legislation authorizing and directing the Secretary of Interior, “subject to the supervision and approval of the 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, to construct the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in accordance 

with the general design developed by the FDR Commission 

and approved by the Commission of Fine Arts on September 

20, 1979.” Th is enactment further stipulated the memorial 

“be constructed in that portion of West Potomac Park in the 

District of Columbia which lies between Independence Avenue 

and the inlet bridge, reserved for the memorial by a joint resolution approved September 1, 1959 (P.L. 86-214).”130

Th eodore Roosevelt Memorial. Amidst the long-term 

legislative proceedings that ultimately led to the construction of the FDR Memorial, the Committee found time to 

focus its attention in 1960 on establishment of a memorial 

to Th eodore Roosevelt. Prior to favorably reporting the bill, 

the Committee held two days of hearings on the proposal in 

February and March of that year. Enactment of H.R. 8655 

(86th Congress) culminated a 40-year eff ort by the Th eodore 

Roosevelt Memorial Association, which had been created by 

Congress in 1920, “to direct the attention of the people of 

the United States to the great contributions to the Nation of 

Th eodore Roosevelt, emphasizing his forceful leadership in 

conservation.”131

James Madison. Also in 1960, legislation establishing a commission to formulate plans for memorial to James 

Madison was acted on by the Committee and became law.132

Woodrow Wilson. In 1961 Woodrow Wilson was 

added to the growing list of former Chief Executives to be 

considered for memorialization by the Committee. Legislation creating a Woodrow Wilson Memorial Commission to 

consider and formulate plans for construction of a memorial 

to the late President in the District of Columbia was approved 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 429

by the Committee on September 19, and signed into law 

in early October 1961. Th e Commission in its fi nal report 

to Congress and the President in September 1966 recommended “establishment and construction of an International 

Center for Scholars as a fi tting memorial to a President noted 

for his scholarship and his international understanding.” 

After receiving the report, President Lyndon B. Johnson 

“in February 1967, directed the Temporary Commission on 

Pennsylvania Avenue to conduct a study to develop a detailed 

plan for the Center.” In its report of March 1968, the Temporary Commission concurred in the recommendations of 

the Wilson Commission report. Later that March, legislation 

supporting the recommendations of the two commissions was 

introduced into the Senate to establish the Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian. A similar bill was introduced in the House that September. After 

the House passed the bill, those proceedings were vacated and 

the House then passed the Senate version of the bill, after the 

Senate accepted House amendments, and bill was enacted in 

late October 1968.133

A decade after the Woodrow Wilson Center was created, 

Congress established the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship at 

the Center and created a trust fund to provide a stipend for the 

annual fellowship. Th e Committee reported the bill establishing the fellowship in April 1978, and it became law a month 

and a half later.134

Americans and Aspects of the American Experience 

Memorialized

Andrew W. Mellon. Among the fi rst pieces of memorial legislation considered by the Committee on House 

Administration was a bill authorizing and directing the 

Secretary of Interior to grant authority to the Andrew W. 

Mellon Memorial Committee to erect a memorial fountain in honor of former Secretary of the Treasury Andrew 

W. Mellon. Th is 1947 act also drafted in recognition of 

Mellon’s notoriety as banker, industrialist, philanthropist, 

and art collector.135

Stephen Collins Foster. Th ree years later, support was 

extended for acceptance of a memorial plaque, a gift of the 

Stephen Foster Memorial Committee, which was to be dedicated to the memory of the famous songwriter.136

National Grange. Also in 1950, the Committee 

approved a bill permitting the National Grange to erect 

a marker on federal land in the District of Columbia in 

commemoration of the founding of the National Grange.137

Sara Louisa Rittenhouse. Th e Georgetown Garden 

Club was granted permission in 1953 to erect a memorial to 

Sara Louisa Rittenhouse in the District’s Montrose Park. Th e 

park had been saved “from being used for a proposed housing development at the beginning” of the twentieth century 

through Rittenhouses’s eff orts.138

Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial. In 1954, 

construction of the Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial 

at the site of Old St. Louis, Missouri, was authorized by the 

Committee. Subsequent legislation approved by the Committee and Congress in 1965 increased the authorization for 

the Expansion Memorial from $17,250,000 to $23,250,000. 

Th e Committee held hearings on the increased authorization 

in April 1965. In this instance, the bill ultimately signed into 

law was the Senate version (S. 1576).139

Boy Scouts of America. Th e Boy Scouts of America in 

1959 gained a favorable reception to erecting a memorial in 

the District of Columbia.140

Mary McLeod Bethune. A committee reported bill the 

following year called for the erection of a memorial in honor 

of “prominent Negro educator [Mary McLeod Bethune], 

and in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation” passed a year later. 

Authorization for the memorial was extended an additional 

two years in 1965.141

Father Flanagan. A joint resolution approved in 1965 

authorized the Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home of Boys Town, 

Nebraska to erect a memorial in honor of the founder of the 

home for underprivileged and homeless boys.142

William Jennings Bryan. Legislation was approved in 

1974 sanctioning the conveyance to the city of Salem, Illinois, 

of a statue of William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party 

nominee for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and 41st United 

States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson.143
430 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Th e Secretary of the Interior was authorized in 1965 to establish a 

memorial in honor of the 56 men who signed the Declaration 

of Independence.144

National Law Enforcement Offi cers. An eff ort by the 

Law Enforcement Offi cers Memorial Fund to gain approval for 

a memorial in the District of Columbia won support in 1984.145

Japanese-American Patriotism in World War II.

In 1992, the Go For Broke National Veterans Association 

Foundation was authorized to establish a memorial to honor 

Japanese American patriotism in World War II. Th e Committee in its favorable report on H.J. Res. 271 (102nd Congress, 

1991–1992) emphasized that:

Despite the constraints upon their freedom and that 

of their families which have been imposed by the 

United States Government, thousands of Japanese 

Americans volunteered to serve in the U.S. armed 

forces during the Second World War. . . . While 

men and women of fi ghting age went to war, civilians in the relocation camps supported them. Facing incarceration without charge, the loss of their 

possessions, and gross prejudice, Japanese Americans as a group persisted in their support of the 

United States.146

Foreigners Honored

Simon Bolivar. Th e Committee’s initial favorable report 

for a memorial paying tribute to a foreigner authorized and 

directed the Secretary of Interior in 1949 to grant authority 

to the Simon Bolivar Memorial Foundation “to erect a bronze 

statue of the great South American liberator, Simon Bolivar, 

the gift of the Government of Venezuela.” Subsequently, in 

1954, the Committee approved legislation extending the time 

limit for erection of the monument from 5 to 10 years because 

domestic disturbances within Venezuela had commanded the 

attention of that county’s government.147

Mohandas K. Gandhi. Erection of a monument to the 

memory of Indian spiritual and political leader, and humanitarian Mohandas K. Gandhi was also authorized in 1949, 

and a fi ve-year time extension was granted in 1954 for the 

memorial.148

Leif Ericsson. In 1956, approval was given for the acceptance of a statute of explorer Leif Ericsson from the Icelandic 

National League.149

Kahlil Gibran. Th ree decades later, in 1984, the Kahlil 

Gibran Centennial Foundation was authorized to establish 

a memorial to honor the Lebanese-American poet and artist 

Kahlil Gibran.150

Guidelines for the Consideration of Memorials

In what turned out to be one of the its last actions in dealing 

with memorials, the Committee in May 1994 published as a 

committee print, Guidelines for the Consideration of Memorials 

Under the Commemorative Works Act. Th e act, which became 

law in 1986, established a “process to ensure that future commemorative works be appropriately designed, constructed, 

and located to refl ect a consensus of the lasting national signifi cance of the subject honored. Its provisions established 

mechanisms for congressional authorization and site design 

approval . . . within a fi ve year authorization period.” Th e 

print, which was prepared by the Subcommittee on Libraries 

and Memorials, was based on a document entitled “24 Steps 

to Erecting a Memorial in Washington, D.C.” prepared by 

the National Park Service.151

Hatch Act

Origins and Development

Th e interrelated issues of political patronage in federal employment and the infl uence of partisan politics in and from the 

federal bureaucracy have been addressed both jointly and separately in executive actions and legislative activities throughout 

the history of the nation. As early as 1801, President Th omas 

Jeff erson discussed the principle of required political neutrality 

for federal employees in a drafted circular;152 and subsequent 

Presidents, as well as legislative reformers, sought during the 

fi rst century of the nation to address the issues of political 

patronage and political coercion in federal service.153 It was 

not until 1883, however, following the 1881 assassination of 

President James Garfi eld by a “disgruntled” political party 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 431

worker and federal job seeker, that comprehensive statutory 

reforms were adopted by Congress in the “Pendleton Civil 

Service Act.”154 Th e 1883 law sought to fashion a professional, 

permanent civil service based on merit principles and to deal 

with some of the more pernicious political activities and political coercions of federal workers and federal job seekers.155

Th e Pendleton Act established merit principles, examinations for civil service entrants, and a federal civil service 

commission, and it prohibited coercion of political activities 

or contributions from federal personnel. It also authorized 

the President to set out rules for political activities for federal employees. Although the Pendleton Act, the civil service rules, and other existing statutory provisions addressed 

coerced political activities, a general, overall ban on voluntary, 

off -duty participation in partisan politics by merit system 

employees was not instituted for federal service workers until 

an Executive Order by President Th eodore Roosevelt was 

issued in 1907. Th e 1907 Executive Order, amending the 

provisions known as Civil Service Rule I, applied only to 

those covered employees in the competitive, classifi ed civil 

service, and provided that such persons “shall take no active 

part in political management or in political campaigns.”156

Th e economic recovery pressures of the Great Depression in the 1930s lead to what some historians have called 

a “short term resurgence of the spoils system” in federally 

funded employment.157 Th e creation of federal programs for 

economic recovery, industrial aid, job creation, and monetary stimulus, and the concurrent creation of numerous 

federal agencies and bureaus to carry out these programs 

and to quickly dispense federal funds, provided the setting 

for potential political patronage abuses and political coercion 

of prospective workers. As noted in one study, the allegations 

of abuse and coercion complained of were exacerbated by the 

fact that “positions in most of these so-called ‘alphabet agencies’ were exempted from Civil Service rules.”158

Certain eff orts were made by Executive Order or administrative fi at during the 1930s to deal with political patronage 

and coercion in federal employment, but the continuing 

allegations of political abuses and the use of federally funded 

programs to interfere with and infl uence partisan elections 

led to comprehensive investigative hearings in the Senate in 

1938 by a Senate Special Committee to Investigate Senatorial 

Campaign Expenditures and Use of Government Funds.159

Th e investigative hearings and report focused on the abuses of 

the merit system and particularly the use of public work relief 

funds (Works Progress Administration) to coerce political 

activities, political loyalty, and political contributions from 

workers on federally funded projects in several states.160

The revelations and recommendations of the Senate 

Special Committee infl uenced Senator Carl Hatch to introduce legislation in 1939, co-sponsored by Senator Morris 

Sheppard (who chaired the Senate Special Committee) and 

Senator Warren R. Austin, which would codify in law specifi c restrictions on voluntary political activities (that is, that 

employees shall take “no active part in political management 

or in political campaigns”), as well as on coercion and use of 

offi cial infl uence to interfere with elections, and apply such 

restrictions to most employees in both the competitive as 

well as the excepted services.161 Th e legislation, S. 1871 (76th

Congress), was reported in the Senate from the Committee on Privileges and Elections,162 and in the House from 

the House Judiciary Committee,163 passed the House and 

Senate, as amended, and was signed into law by President 

Franklin Roosevelt on August 2, 1939.164 Th e law known 

as the “Hatch Act” codifi ed the restrictions of Civil Service 

Rule I, and the administrative interpretations under it, and 

made these restrictions and limitations applicable to most 

employees in the executive branch of the federal government. 

In 1940, Congress extended the restrictions and limitations 

on voluntary, off -duty political activities in the Hatch Act to 

state and local government employees whose offi cial jobs are 

connected with activities that are federally funded.165

Role of the Committee

After the creation of the Committee on House Administration in 1947, pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act 

of 1946, the Committee exercised jurisdiction over legislation 

seeking to amend provisions of the Hatch Act. In 1949166

and in 1950,167 the Committee on House Administration 
432 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

reported legislation which amended the penalties provisions 

of the Hatch Act to provide some fl exibility for the Civil 

Service Commission to apply diff erent penalties for minor 

or inadvertent violations of the Hatch Act by federal offi cers 

and employees.

Th e fi rst bill (H.R. 1243, 81st Congress) passed both 

the House and the Senate, as amended, but was vetoed by 

the President Harry S. Truman on June 30, 1950. While 

the President agreed with the objective of the legislation to 

permit federal workers to take part in politics in their own 

communities, he objected to two provisions in the bill. Th e 

fi rst objectionable provision limited coverage of the measure 

to federal workers in Maryland and Virginia. Th e President 

felt that “participation should be permitted on a Nationwide basis.” Th e second bill gave Congress a statutory right 

to inspect Civil Service Commission records of testimony 

and evidence relative to alleged violations of the act. Th is 

provision, the President maintained, encroached on “the longrecognized prerogative of the Chief Executive to maintain in 

confi dence those papers and documents, which, in the public 

interest, he feels should be so maintained.”168

Subsequently, the House and Senate approved the second 

bill (H.R. 9023, 81st Congress), which did not contain the 

provisions the President had found objectionable. President 

Truman signed H.R. 9023 into law on August 25, 1950. 

Prior to this legislation, any violation of the Hatch Act was 

penalized by removal from federal service; but under the new 

law, the Civil Service Commission could determine a lesser 

penalty, that is, a suspension of at least 90 days for minor 

off enses not warranting removal.169 Th e minimum penalty 

of a 90-day suspension was later reduced, in 1962, to a minimum of a 30-day suspension. Th e Committee held hearings 

on this latter legislation prior to favorably reporting the bill.170

During the time that the Committee on House Administration had jurisdiction over the Hatch “Political Activities” 

Act, from the Committee’s creation in 1947 through 1974, 

numerous pieces of legislation seeking reform, repeal, or other 

amendment of the laws governing the voluntary political 

activities of federal employees (and of state and local government employees whose jobs were in connection with federally 

funded activities) were introduced and were considered by 

the Committee. Th e Committee investigated and conducted 

various studies on the application and administration of the 

Hatch Act provisions, and although several bills were reported 

from the Committee during the time that the Committee 

exercised jurisdiction over the legislative issue, no substantive law, other than the change in the minimum penalty of 

suspension, was adopted concerning federal employees and 

the Hatch Act.

Th e Committee on House Administration held hearings 

in 1954 concerning proposed repeals of the Hatch Act’s ban 

on voluntary, off -duty political activities by federal employees.171 In the 83rd Congress, in 1954, and then again in the 

84th Congress, in 1955, the Committee reported out bills that 

would have amended the penalties provision of the Hatch 

Act restrictions on state and local employees. Th ese proposals 

gave the Civil Service Commission fl exibility in addressing 

minor or inadvertent violations of the law, and permitted 

state and permitted local government employees to engage in 

voluntary political activities off the job. Both bills would have 

substantially repealed the Hatch Act restrictions on off -duty 

activities for state and local employees.172 Although the 83rd

Congress bill passed the House,173 it was not taken up in the 

Senate. Th e similar bill reported by the Committee on House 

Administration in the 84th Congress, H.R. 3084, received no 

favorable fl oor action.

Beginning in the 85th Congress (1957–1958), eff orts were 

initiated to study the eff ects of the Hatch Act’s restrictions on 

off -duty, voluntary political activities of federal employees, 

and the consequences of these restrictions on the civic duties 

and the civil rights of federal, state, and local governmental 

employees covered by the Hatch Act. Bills were introduced 

in the 85th Congress to establish a bipartisan commission to 

gather information and study the operation of the Hatch Act, 

and hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Elections of 

the Committee on House Administration on these bills.174

In August 1957, the House adopted H. Res. 406 (85th Congress), which directed the Committee on House Administration 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 433

to investigate and study the operation and enforcement of the 

Hatch Act and other provisions of federal law that restricted the 

rights of offi cers and employees of the United States and the state 

and local governments to take an active part in political campaigns.175 Pursuant to this resolution, the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration held hearings 

and conducted reviews of the Hatch Act and other laws limiting 

political activities of government employees.176 Th e report from 

the Committee that resulted from these hearings, investigations, 

and studies recommended several amendments to the Hatch Act. 

Th e recommendations called for more fl exibility in assessing penalties by the Civil Service Commission, expanding exemptions for 

certain federal employees in areas and localities impacted by the 

federal government, and eliminating the federal restrictions on 

state and local government employees.177

In the 86th Congress (1959–1960), a number of the recommendations from the Committee’s Hatch Act study were 

incorporated into H.R. 696, on which hearings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee 

on House Administration.178 Th e Committee also held hearings in 1962 on other proposals to amend the federal Hatch 

Act restrictions on state and local offi cials to permit a wider 

range of offi cials appointed by governors to be exempt from 

the restrictions.179

In 1966 the Committee reported out a bill, eventually 

enacted into law, which created a Bipartisan Commission 

to study the federal laws limiting political activities of government workers.180 Th at Commission issued a report and 

recommendations on political activities which, although not 

acted upon immediately, added to the body of evidence and 

opinion that reform and change was warranted concerning 

the severity of the Hatch Act restrictions on even voluntary, 

political participation by government workers on their own 

free time.181

Although reforms and changes to the federal Hatch Act 

restrictions were considered in the 1950s, 1960s, and up until 

1972,182 signifi cant change was not enacted until 1974, when 

the federal Hatch Act law regarding state and local government employees was substantially revised to return regulation 

of most of the voluntary, off -duty political activities of such 

employees to the states themselves, as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.183 Th e provisions 

of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, 

as reported out by the Committee on House Administration, 

included those to “repeal those restrictions on the voluntary 

partisan political activities of state and local employees” contained in the Hatch Act provisions originally adopted for such 

employees in 1940.184

Eff ective January 3, 1975, the jurisdiction over the Hatch 

Act in the House was transferred to the Committee on Post 

Offi ce and Civil Service,185 and then in 1995 such jurisdiction 

was assumed by the Committee on Government Reform.186

Endnotes

1 Paul H. Oehser, Th e Smithsonian Institution, 2nd ed. (Boulder, 

Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), p. 8. 

2 Oehser, Th e Smithsonian Institution, p. 8.

3 Oehser, Th e Smithsonian Institution, p. 11. See also: Congressional 

Globe, vol. 3, 24th Cong., 1st sess., June 25, 1836, pp. 467–468; 5 

Stat. 64 (July 1, 1836); and James D. Richardson, A Compilation of 

the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 20 vols. (New York: Bureau 

of National Literature, Inc., 1897), v. 3, p. 1406.

4 For discussions of the congressional debate see: Kenneth Hafertepe, America’s Castle: Th e Evolution of the Smithsonian Building and 

Its Institution, 1840–1878 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution 

Press, 1984), pp. 8–18; Oehser, Th e Smithsonian Institution, pp. 

12–15; and William Jones Rhees, comp. & ed., Th e Smithsonian 

Institution: Documents Relative to Its Origin and History, 1835–1899, 

2 vols. (Washington: GOP, 1901), vol. 1, pp. 123–144. 

5 Quote is found in: Oehser, Th e Smithsonian Institution, p. 16. See 

also: 9 Stat. 102-106 (Aug. 10, 1846). 

6 U.S. Congress, House, Smithsonian Bequest, report to accompany 

H.R. 187, 24th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 181 (Washington: Gales 

& Rives, 1836), p. 2. 

7 9 Stat. 102-106 (Aug. 10, 1846).

8 Leonard Carmichael and J.C. Long, James Smithson and the 

Smithsonian Story (New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1965), p. 15.

9 60 Stat. 826, 828 (Aug. 2, 1946). House Rule X, cl. 1(k)(5) 

generally refers to the authority of the Committee on House 

Administration over the Smithsonian Institution and related 

institutions, with the exception of building construction for those 

institutions, which is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure. U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives 
434 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

of the United States, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, compiled by 

John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 111-157, 111th Cong., 

2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), sec. 724.

10 Th ere is no prohibition from considering construction issues in 

the broader context of Smithsonian Institution activities oversight. 

Were such oversight to lead to the introduction of a measure in the 

House regarding construction, however, the measure would likely 

be referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

11 House Rule X, cl. 2(b)(1). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, 

Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the 

United States, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, compiled by John V. 

Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. Doc. 111-157, 111th Cong., 2nd sess. 

(Washington: GPO, 2011), sec. 742.

12 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Th e Smithsonian Institution, 

hearings, 2 vols., 91st Cong., 2nd sess., July 1970 (Washington: 

GPO, 1971). Quote is found in: U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Th e Smithsonian Institution, Report by the 

Committee on House Administration Pursuant to Public Law 601, 

79th Congress (Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946), 91st Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Rept. 91-1801 (Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 1. Previous 

hearings were held in 1855, and “embraced an institution that was 

a mere fraction of its” size in 1970. Ibid. 

13 Committee on House Administration, Th e Smithsonian Institution, H. Rept. 91-1801, p. 24. 

14 Quotes are found in: U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Hearing on Smithsonian Institution Oversight, hearing, 102nd Cong., 2nd 

sess., Mar. 4, 1992 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 50. See also: 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 102nd 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 1992), 

pp. 66–68.

15 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Oversight of the Smithsonian 

Institution, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 5, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003). See also: Editorial, “Open the Zoo,” Washington 

Post, Mar. 11, 2003, p. A22.

16 Smithsonian Business Ventures (SBV) is an operating division 

of the Smithsonian Institution. SBV “was established in 1998 when 

the institution’s board of regents authorized the creation of a distinct 

operating division that would bring together the Smithsonian’s 

diverse business activities and have them managed professionally 

by a team of experienced executives reporting to a board of directors and the secretary. . . . Th e board of regents felt that there had 

to be a more organized professional approach to dealing with” the 

Smithsonian’s museum shops, restaurants, the Smithsonian Magazine, and the institution’s diverse activities.” Testimony of Lawrence 

M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Smithsonian Institution 

Business Ventures, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 2006 

(Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 8, 15.

17 Remarks of Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Committee on House 

Administration, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Smithsonian Institution Business Ventures, hearing, 109th Cong., 

2nd sess., May 25, 2006 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 2. See also: 

Ashley Parker, “Smithsonian Deal Attacked,” New York Times, May 

26, 2006, p. E1; Jacqueline Trescott, “Smithsonian Hands Over 

TV Contract: Lawmakers Get the Details of a 30-Year Agreement,” 

Washington Post, May 26, 2006, p. C1; and Stephanie Woodrow, 

“Smithsonian-Showtime Deal Irks Members,” Roll Call, May 30, 

2006, pp. 20, 22. 

18 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, H. Rept. 

110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 22–23. 

19 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, H. Rept. 

110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 23.

20 U.S. Congress. Committee on House Administration, The 

Smithsonian in Transition, meeting Aug. 1, 2007, 110th Cong., 1st 

sess. Washington: GPO, 2007.

21 Ibid., pp. 23, 67.

22 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, H. Rept. 

110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 23.

23 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 24; U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on the 

Management of Asbestos and Hazardous Materials at the Smithsonian Institution, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 1, 2009 

(Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 1. See also: James V. Grimaldi and 

Jacqueline Trescott, “Smithsonian and 27-Year Employee in Battle 

Over Asbestos: Staff er has Disease; Museum Defends Safety,” 

Washington Post, Mar. 15, 2009, p. A1. 

24 Committee on House Administration, Hearing on the Management of Asbestos and Hazardous Materials at the Smithsonian 

Institution, p. 24.

25 Ibid., pp. 31, 46, 65.

26 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. 

Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 24. See also: James V. 

Grimaldi and Jacqueline Trescott, “Smithsonian Settles Asbestos 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 435

Lawsuit; Ex-Employee Gets $233,000 and Health Insurance,” 

Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2009, p. A1. 

27 In the 112th Congress, this included legislation providing for the 

appointment of two citizen regents of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution (P.L. 112-12, 125 Stat. 214 (Apr. 25, 2011); 

P.L. 112-19, 125 Stat. 231, (June 24, 2011)); and the reappointment 

of a third citizen regent of the Smithsonian Board (P.L. 112-20, 125 

Stat. 232, (June 24, 2011)).

28 P.L. 228, 63 Stat. 606 (Aug. 15, 1949); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Providing for Cooperation 

by the Smithsonian Institution With State, Educational, and Scientifi c 

Organizations in the United States for Continuing Paleontological 

Investigations in Areas Which Will be Flooded by the Construction of 

Government Dams, report to accompany H.R. 2290, 81st Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 896 (Washington: GPO, 1949). 

29 P.L. 259, 63 Stat. 623 (Aug. 22, 1949); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Providing for Cooperation 

by the Smithsonian Institution With State, Educational, and Scientifi c 

Organizations in the United States for the Continuing Ethnological 

Researches on the American Indians, report to accompany H.R. 

3417, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1055 (Washington: GPO, 1949). 

30 P.L. 82-206, 65 Stat. 634-636 (Oct. 24, 1951); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Relating to the Policing 

of the Buildings and Grounds of the Smithsonian and Its Constituent 

Bureaus, report to accompany H.R. 1038, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 82-698 (Washington: GPO, 1951). 

31 P.L. 88-391, 78 Stat. 365-366 (Dec. 5, 1963); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of 

October 24, 1951 (65 Stat. 634; 40 U.S.C. 193(n)-(w)), As Amended 

Relating to the Policing of the Buildings and Grounds of the Smithsonian and Its Constituent Bureaus, report to accompany H.R. 9036, 

88th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 88-988 (Washington: GPO, 1963). 

32 P.L. 85-357, 72 Stat. 68 (Mar. 28, 1958); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Transfer 

of the Civil Service Building to the Smithsonian Institution to House 

Certain Art Collections of the Smithsonian, report to accompany 

H.R. 9145, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 85-1533 (Washington: 

GPO, 1958). 

33 P.L. 87-443, 76 Stat. 62 (Apr. 27, 1962); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Providing for a National 

Portrait Gallery as a Bureau of the Smithsonian Institution, report 

to accompany H.R. 8446, 87th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 87-902 

(Washington: GPO, 1961). 

34 P.L. 87-186, 75 Stat. 414-415 (Aug. 30, 1961); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a National 

Armed Services Museum Advisory Board of the Smithsonian Institution, to Authorize Expansion of the Smithsonian Institution’s Facilities 

for Portraying the Contributions of the Armed Forces of the United 

States, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 4659, 

87th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 87-609 (Washington: GPO, 1961). 

Th e museum was never funded or constructed, and the Board’s 

functions were eventually discontinued due to lack of funding. 

Th e United States Government Manual 2011 (Washington: GPO, 

2011), p. 533.

35 P.L. 88-549, 78 Stat. 754 (Aug. 31, 1964); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Smithsonian Institution to Employ Aliens in a Scientifi c or Technical Capacity, 

report to accompany H.R. 10178, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

88-1773 (Washington: GPO, 1964), p. 1.

36 For legislation providing for the establishment and construction 

of the National Air Museum see: P.L. 79-722, 60 Stat. 997 (Aug. 

12, 1946); and P.L. 85-935, 72 Stat. 1794 (Sept. 6, 1958). Th e two 

laws were considered by the House Committee on the Library, and 

the House Committee on Public Works, respectively. 

37 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Printing and Memorials, unpublished hearings, 88th

Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 11, 1964 (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-No: 88 HHad-T.72); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Calendar of Business, Eighty-Eighth Congress: 

Final Calendar (Washington: GPO, 1964), p. 67. 

38 P.L. 89-509, 80 Stat. 310-312 (July 19, 1966); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending Public 

Law 722 of the 79th Congress and Public Law 85-935, Relating to 

the National Air Museum of the Smithsonian, report to accompany 

H.R. 6125, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 89-1042 (Washington: 

GPO, 1965).

39 H.R. 2756 (102nd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, National Air and Space Museum, hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st

sess., July 30, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1993); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the 

Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives 

During the One Hundred Second Congress, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 63–64.

40 H.R. 3281 (102nd Cong.); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, National Air and Space Museum Expansion Site 

Selection Act of 1992, report to accompany H.R. 3281, 102nd Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-923 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 4–5; 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Hearing on Smithsonian Administrative Service Center and Air and Space Museum Expansion, hearings, 

102nd Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 1, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1993). See 

also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 

102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 

1992); pp. 64–65.

41 P.L. 103-57, 107 Stat. 279 (Aug. 2, 1993); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Calendar of Business, One 

Hundred Th ird Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 
436 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

1994), p. 119; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Th ird 

Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 103-893 (Washington: 

GPO, 1995), p. 6.

42 26 Stat. 78 (Apr. 30, 1890). Th is act was amended in 1961. P.L. 

87-360, 75 Stat. 779 (Oct. 4, 1961).

43 P.L. 89-772, 80 Stat. 1322 (Nov. 6, 1966); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to Negotiate Cooperative Agreements Granting Concessions at the National Zoological Park to Certain 

Nonprofi t Organizations and to Accept Voluntary Services of Such 

Organizations or of Individuals, and For Other Purposes, report to 

accompany S. 3230, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 89-2204 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 1. 

44 Editorial, “Open the Zoo,” Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2003, p. 

A22. See also: Testimony of Lawrence S. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Oversight 

of the Smithsonian, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 5, 2003 

(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 15–17.

45 In 1966, the Director of the National Museum administered 

several diff erent Smithsonian programs. On June 27, 1967, the 

“United States National Museum was established as a fully separate 

administrative unit of the Smithsonian. At this time the Director, 

United States National Museum was relieved of line responsibility for the National Museum of History and Technology and the 

National Museum of Natural History. Th e Director continued 

to have broad responsibilities for review and coordination of all 

museum and exhibit activities within the entire Smithsonian.” 

He also “continued to carry out the directives of the National 

Museum Act of 1966.” In 1972, the title of Director of the National 

Museum was superseded by Assistant Secretary for Museum Programs (Director, United States National Museum). U.S. Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian Archives, Finding Aids to Offi cial 

Records of the Smithsonian Institution, Record Unit 190, United 

States National Museum, Offi ce of the Director, Records, circa 

1921–1973, by Linda Elmore and Pamela Henson [http://siarchives.

si.edu/fi ndingaids/FARU0190.htm#FARU190i].

46 P.L. 89-674, 80 Stat. 953 (Oct. 15, 1966); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Relating to the National 

Museum of the Smithsonian, report to accompany H.R. 7315, 89th 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1599 (Washington: GPO, 1966).

47 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953, 20 U.S.C. 65a), Relating to the National Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, So as to 

Authorize Additional Appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution for 

Carrying out the Purposes of Said Act, report to accompany S. 2137, 

93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1162 (Washington: GPO, 1974), 

p. 1. See also: P.L. 93-345, 88 Stat. 339 (July 12, 1974). 

48 P.L. 94-336, 90 Stat. 795 (July 1, 1976); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of October 

15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953; 20 U.S.C. 65a Relating to the National Museum 

of the of the Smithsonian Institution, So as to Authorize Additional 

Appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution for Carrying Out the 

Purposes of Said Act, report to accompany H.R. 12505, 94th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 94-1125 (Washington: GPO, 1976). 

49 P.L. 90-637, 82 Stat. 1356-1359 (Oct. 24, 1968); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a National 

Memorial to Woodrow Wilson in the Smithsonian Institution, report 

to accompany H.R. 19988, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 90-1942 

(Washington: GPO, 1968). 

50 P.L. 95-286, 92 Stat. 278-279 (May 26, 1978); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a Hubert 

H. Humphrey Fellowship in Social and Political Th ought at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution and to 

Establish a Trust Fund to Provide a Stipend for Such Fellowship, report 

to accompany H.R. 10392, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 95-1062 

(Washington: GPO, 1978). 

51 P.L. 94-98, 89 Stat. 480 (Sept. 19, 1975); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Smithsonian to Plan Museum Support Facilities, report to accompany H.R. 

5328, 94rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 94-258 (Washington: GPO, 

1975), p. 1. 

52 P.L. 94-74, 89 Stat. 407 (Aug. 8, 1975); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Reserving a Site for the Use 

of the Smithsonian, report to accompany H.R. 5327, 94rd Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 94-257 (Washington: GPO, 1975).

53 P.L. 96-36, 93 Stat. 94 (July 20, 1979).

54 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending Section 2 of Public Law 96-36 to Authorize Additional Funds to 

Plan the Development of the Area South of the Original Smithsonian 

Building, report to accompany H.R. 2632, 97th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 97-218 (Washington: GPO, 1981).

55 P.L. 95-414, 92 Stat. 911-913 (Oct. 5, 1978); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Smithsonian Institution to Acquire the Museum of African Art, and For Other 

Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 10792, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 95-1417 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 2.

56 P.L. 97-199, 96 Stat. 121 (June 22, 1982); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Adjustment of Interest on 

Smithsonian Institution Funds Deposited With the Treasury, report 

to accompany H.R. 6132, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-503 

(Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 1.

57 P.L. 98-73, 97 Stat. 406 (Aug. 11, 1983); and U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Smithsonian Institution to Purchase Land in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, 

report to accompany S. 930, 98th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 98-330 

(Washington: GPO, 1983). 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 437

58 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report of 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Eighth Congress, 98th Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Rept. 98-1173 (Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 56; and P.L. 

98-523, 98 Stat. 2433 (Oct. 19, 1984).

59 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, unpublished hearings, 102nd

Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 1, 1991 (Congressional Information Service, 

Inc., CIS-No: 93-H421-9); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One 

Hundred Second Congress, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 

(Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 65.

60 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, CooperHewitt Museum Facilities, report to accompany H.R. 1609, 99th 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 99-365, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1985); 

and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the Ninety-Ninth Congress, 99th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 99-1028 (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 91–92.

61 P.L. 101-185, 103 Stat. 1336-1347 (Nov. 28, 1989); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, National Museum of 

the American Indian Act, report to accompany H.R. 2668, 101st

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 101-340, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 

1989); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, National American Indian Museum Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 2668, 101st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 101-340, 

part 2 (Washington: GPO, 1989); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs, Subcommittee on Libraries 

and Memorials of the Committee on House Administration, and 

Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the House 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Establishment of 

the National Museum of the American Indian, hearings on 2668, 101st

Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 9, 1989, and July 20 1989 (Washington: GPO, 

1992). See also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred and First 

Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: 

GPO, 1991), pp. 125–126.

62 P.L. 104-278, 110 Stat. 3355-3357 (Oct. 9, 1996); and U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities 

of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 

During the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 104-885 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 18.

63 P.L. 99-511, 100 Stat. 2080 (Oct. 21, 1986). 

64 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration on the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Second Congress, 102nd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-1083 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 68.

65 Statement by Robert McCormick Adams, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Establishment of an 

African-American Heritage Memorial Museum, hearings, 101st Cong., 

1st sess., Sept. 21, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 33.

66 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives During the One Hundred and First Congress, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: 

GPO, 1991), p. 126.

67 Ibid., pp. 126–127.

68 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Hearing on Smithsonian Institution, H.R. 1246, National African-American Museum, hearing, 102nd

Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 8, 1992 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 32. 

69 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials, Hearing on Smithsonian Institute, H.R. 1246, National African-American Museum, hearing, 102nd

Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 8, 1992 (Washington: GPO, 1993); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, H.R. 5831 (Designating 

the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Building, Victoria, TX); H.R. 5822 

(Designating the Richard Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building, 

Pasadena, CA); H.R. 1246 (National African-American Museum); 

Building Project Survey Report for Atlanta, GA (Rich’s Department 

Store), hearings, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 15, 1992 (Washington: 

GPO, 1993), pp. 10–24; and U.S. Congress, House Committee 

on Public Works and Transportation, National African-American 

Museum Act, report to accompany H.R. 1246, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 102-1009, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1992).

70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, National 

African American Museum Act, report to accompany H.R. 887, 

103rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 103-140, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 

1995). Mention of the Mar. 17, 1993, hearing held by the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials is found in, Ibid., p. 5. See also: 

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, To Authorize the Establishment of that National African 

American Museum Within the Smithsonian Institution (H.R. 877), 

hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 25, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 

1993); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, National African American Museum Act, report to 

accompany H.R. 887, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 103-140, part 

1 (Washington: GPO, 1995).

71 P.L. 107-106, 115 Stat. 1009-1011 (Dec. 28, 2001); “Public Bills 

and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 11, 2001, 

p. 24982; and Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, “National Museum of 

African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential 

Commission Act of 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, Dec. 11, 

2001, pp. 24915–24918.

72 P.L. 108-184, 117 Stat. 2676-2683 (Dec.16, 2003); “Public 

Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, Nov. 17, 
438 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

2003, p. 29276; “National Museum of African American History 

and Culture Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, Nov. 18, 2003, 

pp. 29553–29559; Nov. 19, 2003, pp. 29728-29729.; and Nov. 30, 

pp. 29959–29961.

73 H.R. 3292, H.R. 3292, and H.R. 4854, H.R. 4863 (108th

Cong.); and H.R. 2134 (109th Cong.). 

74 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, To Establish the National Museum of the American Latino, hearing, 108th

Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004); U.S. 

Congress, Committee on House Administration, Commission to 

Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American 

Latino Community Act of 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2134, 

109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 109-584, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 

2006); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Commission to Study the Potential Creation 

of a National Museum of the American Latino Community Act of 

2006, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 30, 2006; U.S. Congress, 

House Committee on Resources, Commission to Study the Potential 

Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community 

Act of 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2134, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 109-584, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2006); and “Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum 

of the American Latino Community Act of 2006,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 152, Sept. 27, 2006, pp. 20239–20242.

75 “Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the National 

Museum of the American Latino Act of 2007,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 153, Feb. 6, 2007, pp. 3147-3151; and P.L. 110-229, sec. 333, 

122 Stat. 784-787, May 8, 2008.

76 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, First Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Twelfth 

Congress, H. Rept. 112-137 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 15–16.

77 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Civil 

Rights History Project Act of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 998, 

100th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-848 (Washington: GPO, 2008). 

78 “Civil Rights History Project Act of 2008,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 154, Sept. 17, 2008, pp. 19517–19520.

79 “Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act of 2008,” 

Congressional Record, vol. 154, Sept. 17, 2008, pp. 19498–19499.

80 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, H. Rept. 

110-924 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 24. See also: U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Smithsonian Institution 

Facilities Authorization Act of 2008, report to accompany H.R. 

6627, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 110-842, part 1 (Washington: 

GPO, 2008). 

81 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Rept. 

111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 23. See also: P.L. 111-19, 123 

Stat. 1612-1615 (May 12, 2009).

82 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to Plan, Design, 

and Construct a Vehicle Maintenance Building at the Vehicle Maintenance Branch of the Smithsonian Institution Located in Suitland, 

Maryland, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3224, H. 

Rept. 111-276, part 2 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 1. See also: U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Authorizing the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to Plan, 

Design, and Construct a Vehicle Maintenance Building at the Vehicle 

Maintenance Branch of the Smithsonian Institution Located in Suitland, 

Maryland, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3224, 

H. Rept. 111-276, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2009).

83 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on 

the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. 

Rept. 111-715 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 23.

84 Luther H. Evans, “Th e Library of Congress as the National 

Library of Science,” Scientifi c Monthly, vol. 66, May 1948, p. 411.

85 12 Stat. 387 (May 15, 1862).

86 76 Stat. 1203, at 1211 (Oct. 24, 1962). 

87 108 Stat. 260 (Mar. 31, 1994).

88 Wyndham D. Miles, A History of the National Library of Medicine: Th e Nation’s Treasury of Medical Knowledge (Bethesda, MD: 

National Institutes of Health Publication, 1982), pp. 1-3, 27-29.

89 14 Stat. 14, at 23 (Apr. 7, 1866). 

90 Miles, A History of the National Library of Medicine, pp. 141–

149, 162–170, 351.

91 U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of 

the Government, Task Force on Federal Medical Services, Report 

on Federal Medical Services (Washington: Feb. 1955), pp. 14–15.

92 U.S. Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch 

of the Government, Federal Medical Services: A Report to the Congress

(Washington: Feb. 1955), pp. 63–64.

93 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Proposing 

Creation of a National Library of Medicine to be Located in Chicago, 

Illinois, unpublished hearing, 84th Cong., 2nd sess, June 19, 1956 

(Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 84 HHad-T.15); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, National 

Library of Medicine, unpublished hearing, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., 

June 26, 1956 (Congressional Information Service, Inc., CIS-No: 

84 HHad-T.16).

94 70 Stat. 960 (Aug. 3, 1956); Miles, A History of the National 

Library of Medicine, pp. 350–355.

95 Miles, A History of the National Library of Medicine, pp. 356–360.
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 439

96 Judith Dupre, Monuments: America’s History in Art and Memory

(New York: Random House, 2007), p. xii.

97 Edwin C. Bearss, “National Cemeteries, Monuments, and 

Battlefi elds,” in Donald C. Bacon, Roger H. Davidson, and Morton 

Keller, eds., Th e Encyclopedia of the United States Congress, 4 vols. 

(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), v. 3, p. 1439.

98 U.S. Continental Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress 

1774–1789, 34 vols., edited from the original records in the Library 

of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford (Washington: GPO, 

1904–1937), v. 24, pp. 494–495.

99 U.S. Continental Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress 

1774–1789, 34 vols., edited from the original records in the Library 

of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford (Washington: GPO, 

1904–1937), v. 21, p. 1081.

100 P.L. 126, 21 Stat. 163 (June 7, 1880).

101 See for example: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ways 

and Means, Statue of Washington, 19th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

181 (Washington: 1826); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on 

the Library, Removal of Greenough’s Statue of Washington, report to 

accompany Joint Resolution H.R. no. 43., 27th Cong., 3rd sess., H. 

Rept. 219 (Washington: 1843); U.S. Congress, House, Committee 

on Public Buildings, Statue of America, report to accompany J.R. 

No. 21, 31st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 92 (Washington: 1851); U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on Military Aff airs, Condemned Cannon for Statue to Maj. Gen. John Fulton Reynolds, report to accompany H. Res. 38, 47th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 266 (Washington: 

GPO, 1882); and U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the District 

of Columbia, Luther Statue Association of the District of Columbia, 

report to accompany H.R. 4088, 48th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 280 

(Washington: GPO, 1882).

102 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Statues to 

William Penn and General Anthony Wayne, report to accompany 

H.R. 8074, 49th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 2793 (Washington: GPO, 

1886); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Statue 

to Samuel Hahnemann, report to accompany H.J. Res. 50, 56th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 83 (Washington: GPO, 1900); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Bronze Statue of George 

Washington, report to accompany H.R. 5795, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 1951 (Washington: GPO, 1900); U.S. Congress, House, 

Committee on the Library, Statue to Paul Jones, report to accompany H.R. 12202, 57th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 2462 (Washington: 

GPO, 1902); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Library, 

Equestrian Statue of Casimir Pulaski, report to accompany H.R. 16, 

57th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 2282 (Washington: GPO, 1902); U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Equestrian Statue to 

Memory of Baron Steuben, report to accompany H.R. 14644, 57th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 2497 (Washington: GPO, 1902); U.S. 

Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Amending Section 

1814 of Revised Statutes Relative to Placing Statues or Busts in National 

Statuary Hall, report to accompany H.R. 11341, 60th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 1108 (Washington: GPO, 1908); U.S. Congress, 

House, Committee on the Library, Statue of Jeanne d’Arc, report 

to accompany S.J. Res. 108, 67th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 516 

(Washington: GPO, 1921); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on 

the Library, Statue of Edmund Burke, report to accompany S.J. Res. 

165, 67th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 868 (Washington: GPO, 1922); 

U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Library, Authorizing 

the Erection of a Statue of Abraham Lincoln in Gettysburg National 

Cemetery, report to accompany H.R. 7731, 74th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 843 (Washington: GPO, 1935); and U.S. Congress, House, 

Committee on the Library, Erection in the District of Columbia of a 

Statue to Nathan Hale, report to accompany S.J. Res. 84, 79th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 2229 (Washington: GPO, 1946).

103 “House Resolution 272,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 

1929, pp. 1077–1081. 

104 Only a single Member of Congress, Rep. Th eodorick Bland of 

Virginia, died during the First Congress.

105 Rep. Bertrand Snell, remarks in the House, “House Resolution 

272,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 1929, p. 1077.

106 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Amending Rule 

X, report to accompany H. Res. 272, 70th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

1963 (Washington: GPO, 1928).

107 “Memorial Services, House Resolution 272,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 1929, pp. 1077–1078.

108 “Memorial Services, House Resolution 272,” Congressional 

Record, vol. 70, Jan. 3, 1929, pp. 1078–1079.

109 “Memorial Exercises,” Congressional Record, vol. 70, Feb. 20, 

1929, pp. 3857–3914.

110 P.L. 592, 60 Stat. 826 (Aug. 2, 1946).

111 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

the Rules of the House of Representatives Ninety-third Congress, 92nd 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 384 (Washington: GPO, 1973), pp. 348, 

566; U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and 

the Rules of the House of Representatives Ninety-Fourth Congress, 93rd

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 416 (Washington: GPO, 1975), pp. 361–

365; and “Committee Reform,” Journal of the House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1976), pt. 2, p. 1874.

112 P.L. 592, 60 Stat. 826 (Aug. 2, 1946); and U.S. Congress, 

Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Doc. 103-342 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 400.

113 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection in the District of Columbia of a Memorial to the Marine 

Corps of all Wars, report to accompany S.J. Res. 113, 80th Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 638 (Washington: GPO, 1947); P.L. 157, 61 Stat. 242 

(July 1, 1947); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Amending the Act of July 1, 1947 (61 Stat. 242), report to accompany 

H.J. Res. 418, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1780 (Washington: 

GPO, 1952); and P.L. 462, 66 Stat. 441 (July 7, 1952).
440 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

114 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of July 1, 1947 (61 Stat. 242), as Amended, report to 

accompany H.J. Res. 157, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 424 (Washington: GPO, 1953). See also: P.L. 66, 67 Stat. 64 (June 16, 1953).

115 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a Commission to Formulate Plans for the Erection in Grant 

Park, Chicago, Ill., of a Marine Corps Memorial, report to accompany 

S.J. Res. 112, 80th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1090 (Washington: 

GPO, 1947); and P.L. 327, 61 Stat. 724-725 (Aug 4, 1947).

116 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Designating the Custis-Lee Mansion and Dedicating It as a Permanent 

Memorial to Robert E. Lee, report to accompany S.J. Res. 62, 84th 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 620 (Washington: GPO, 1955); and P.L. 

107, 69 Stat. 190-191 (June 29, 1955).

117 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the American Battle Monuments Commission to Prepare Plans 

and Estimates for the Erection of a Suitable Memorial to John J. Pershing, report to accompany S.J. Res. 95, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., H. 

Rept. 1901 (Washington: GPO, 1956); P.L. 461, 70 Stat. 84 (Apr. 

2, 1956); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, 

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library, To Authorize the 

Erection of a Memorial in the District of Columbia to General John J. 

Pershing, unpublished hearings on H.R. 8665, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., 

Mar. 8, 1962, LexisNexis Hearing ID: HRG-1962-ADH-0005; 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Library and Memorials, Pershing Memorial, hearings on H.R. 

14195 and related, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., July 13, 1966 (Washington: 

GPO, 1966); and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection of a Suitable Memorial to Gen. John 

J. Pershing, report to accompany H.R. 14195, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 1864 (Washington: GPO, 1966); P.L. 89-786, 80 Stat. 

1377 (Nov. 7, 1966).

118 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection on Public Grounds in the City of Washington, 

D.C., of a Memorial to the Dead of the First Infantry Division, United 

States Forces, World War II, report to accompany H.J. Res. 188, 80th

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 381 (Washington: GPO, 1947); P.L. 111, 

61 Stat. 178 (June 25, 1947); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Authorizing the Erection of a Monument to the Dead 

of the First Infantry, U.S. Forces in Vietnam, report to accompany S.J. 

Res. 66, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1244 (Washington: GPO, 

1974); and P.L. 93-384, 88 Stat. 74 (Aug. 23, 1974). 

119 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection on Public Grounds in the City of Washington, D.C., 

of a Memorial to the Dead of the 2d Infantry Division, United States 

Forces, World War II and the Korean Confl ict, report to accompany 

H.J. Res. 345, 85th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 812 (Washington: 

GPO, 1957); P.L. 85-131, 71 Stat. 346 (Aug. 14, 1957); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the 101st

Airborne Division Association to Erect a Memorial in the District 

of Columbia, report to accompany H.J. Res. 451, 85th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 1582 (Washington: GPO, 1958); P.L. 85-403, 72 

Stat. 112 (May 16, 1958); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Authorizing the One Hundred and First Airborne 

Division Association to Erect a Memorial in the District of Columbia 

or its Environs, report to accompany H.R. 3710, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 94-740 (Washington: GPO, 1975); and P.L. 94-211, 90 

Stat. 151 (Feb. 6, 1976).

120 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the United Spanish War Veterans to Erect a Memorial in the 

District of Columbia, or Its Environs, report to accompany H.J. Res. 

793, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1774 (Washington: GPO, 1964); 

and P.L. 88-612, 78 Stat. 992 (Oct. 2, 1964).

121 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Placement of a Memorial Tablet in the U.S. Capitol in 

Honor of the Troops Quartered Th ere During the Civil War, report 

to accompany H. Res. 530, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1777 

(Washington: GPO, 1964); and “Placement of a Memorial Tablet 

in the U.S. Capitol,” Congressional Record, vol. 110, Aug. 17, 1964, 

p. 19891.

122 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Memorial to Honor Members of the Armed Forces Who Served in the Korean 

Confl ict, report to accompany H.R. 2205, 99th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 99-341 (Washington: GPO, 1985); P.L. 99-572, 100 Stat. 

3226-3227 (Oct. 28, 1986); and U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Temporary Investment of Korean War Veterans Memorial Contributions, report to accompany H.R. 1454, 100th 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 100-405 (Washington: GPO, 1987); and 

P.L. 100-230, 101 Stat. 1563-1564 (Jan. 5, 1988). 

123 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Black 

Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, report to accompany H.J. 

Res. 142, 99th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 99-340 (Washington: GPO, 

1985); P.L. 99-558, 100 Stat. 3144 (Oct. 27, 1986); and P.L. 99-590, 

Title VIII, sec. 801, 100 Stat. 3339 (Oct. 30, 1986). 

124 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Memorial to Honor Women Who Have Served in or With the Armed Forces, 

report to accompany H.J. Res. 36, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 

99-342 (Washington: GPO, 1985); P.L. 99-610, 100 Stat. 3477 

(Nov. 6, 1986); and P.L. 99-590, Title VIII, sec. 802, 100 Stat. 

3339 (Oct. 30, 1986). 

125 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Vietnam 

Women’s Memorial, report to accompany S. 2042, 100th Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 100-948 (Washington: GPO, 1988); and P.L. 100-

660, 102 Stat. 3922 (Nov. 15, 1988). 

126 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a Commission to Formulate Plans for a Memorial to Franklin 

D. Roosevelt, report to accompany S.J. Res. 73, 84th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 1617 (Washington: GPO, 1955); and P.L. 372, 69 Stat. 

694 (Aug. 11, 1955).

127 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Reserving a Site in the District of Columbia for the Erecting of a Memorial to 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 441

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Providing for a Competition for the Design 

of Such Memorial, and Providing Additional Funds for Holding the 

Competition, report to accompany H.J. Res. 115, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Rept. 208 (Washington: GPO, 1959); and P.L. 86-214, 73 Stat. 

445-446 (Sept. 1, 1959).

128 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library, Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

Memorial, hearing on H.J. Res. 712 and H.J. Res. 713, 87th Cong., 

2nd sess., June 8, 1962 (Washington: GPO, 1962); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Authorizing and Directing 

the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission to Raise Funds 

for the Construction of a Memorial, report to accompany H.J. Res. 

712, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2148 (Washington: GPO, 1962); 

and P.L. 87-842, 76 Stat. 1079 (Oct. 18, 1962).

129 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, report to accompany 

H.R. 9495, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1043 (Washington: GPO, 

1965); P.L. 89-305, 79 Stat. 1126 (Oct. 30, 1965); P.L. 89-304, 79 

Stat. 1126 (Oct. 30, 1965); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Authorizing Additional Funds for Operation of the 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, report to accompany H.R. 15351, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 91-1305 (Washington: GPO, 1970); and P.L. 91-398, 84 Stat. 837 (Sept. 8, 1970).

130 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorization of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, report to accompany 

H.J. Res. 400, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 97-556 (Washington: 

GPO, 1982); and P.L. 97-224, 96 Stat. 243 (July 28, 1982).

131 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act Entitled “An Act to Establish a Memorial to Th eodore 

Roosevelt in the National Capital” to Provide for the Construction of 

Such Memorial by the Secretary of the Interior, report to accompany 

H.R. 8665, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1760 (Washington: GPO, 

1960), p. 3. See also: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library, To Amend 

the Act Entitled “An Act to Establish a Memorial to Th eodore Roosevelt in the National Capital” to Provide for the Construction of Such 

Memorial by the Secretary of Interior, unpublished hearings on H.R. 

8665, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 23 and Mar. 31, 1960, LexisNexis 

Hearing ID: HRG-1960-ADH-0014, and HRG-1960-ADH-0015; 

and P.L. 86-764-765, 74 Stat. 904-905 (Sept. 13, 1960).

132 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a Commission to Formulate Plans for a Memorial to James 

Madison, report to accompany S.J. Res. 128, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 1441 (Washington: GPO, 1960); and P.L. 86-417, 74 Stat. 

37 (Apr. 8, 1960). 

133 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a National Memorial to Woodrow Wilson in the Smithsonian 

Institution, report to accompany H.R. 19988, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 1942 (Washington: GPO, 1968); and P.L. 90-637, 82 Stat. 

1356-1359 (Oct. 24, 1968). 

134 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Establishing a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship in Social and Political 

Th ought at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian 

Institution and to Establish a Trust Fund to Provide a Stipend for Such 

Fellowship, report to accompany H.R. 10392, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., 

H. Rept. 95-1062 (Washington: GPO, 1978), and P.L. 95-286, 92 

Stat. 278-279 (May 26, 1978).

135 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection in the District of Columbia of a Memorial to 

Andrew W. Mellon, report to accompany H.J. Res. 170, 80th Cong., 

1st sess., H. Rept. 383 (Washington: GPO, 1947); and P.L. 194, 61 

Stat. 327-328 (July 16, 1947). 

136 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Acceptance of a Memorial Plaque to Memory of Stephen 

Collins Foster, report to accompany H.J. Res. 385, 81st Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 2960 (Washington: GPO, 1950); and P.L. 782, 64 

Stat. 829 (Sept. 9, 1950).

137 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Permitting the National Grange to Erect a Marker on Federal Land in the 

District of Columbia, report to accompany H.J. Res. 519, 81st Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 2961 (Washington: GPO, 1950); and P.L. 813, 

64 Stat. 906 (Sept. 22, 1950).

138 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection of a Memorial to Sara Louisa Rittenhouse in Montrose Park, D.C., report to accompany S.J. Res. 37, 83rd Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 865 (Washington: GPO, 1953); and P.L. 152, 67 

Stat. 196 (July 27, 1953).

139 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Providing for the Construction of the Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial 

at the Site of Old St. Louis, Mo., in General Accordance with the Plan 

Approved by the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission, report to accompany H.R. 6549, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 1040 (Washington: GPO, 1953); P.L. 361, 68 Stat. 98-100 

(May 17, 1954); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Act of May 17, 1954 (68 Stat. 98), as Amended 

Providing for the Construction of the Jeff erson National Expansion 

Memorial at the Site of Old St. Louis, Mo., and for Other Purposes, 

report to accompany H.R. 6519, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

881 (Washington: GPO, 1965); U.S. Congress, Committee on 

House Administration, Subcommittee on Library and Memorials, 

To Amend the Act of May 17, 1954, as Amended, Providing for the 

Construction of the Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial at the Site 

of Old Saint Louis, unpublished hearing on H.R. 6519, H.R. 6520, 

H.R. 6521, H.R. 6522, H.R. 6523, 89th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 9, 1965, 

LexisNexis Hearing ID: HRG-1965-ADH-0019; and P.L. 89-269, 

79 Stat. 991 (Oct. 19, 1965). 

140 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Boy Scouts of America to Erect a Memorial on Public 

Grounds in the District of Columbia to Honor the Members and 

Leaders of Such Organization, and for Other Purposes, report to 
442 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

accompany S. 602, 86th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 569 (Washington: GPO, 1959); and P.L. 86-111, 73 Stat. 261-262 (July 28, 

1959).

141 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection in the District of Columbia of a Memorial to Mary 

McLeod Bethune, report to accompany H.J. Res. 502, 86th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 1439 (Washington: GPO, 1960); P.L. 86-484, 

74 Stat. 154 (June 1, 1960); U.S. Congress, Committee on House 

Administration, Extending for 2 Years the Existing Authority for the 

Erection in the District of Columbia of a Memorial to Mary McLeod 

Bethune, report to accompany S.J. Res. 89, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. 

Rept. 882 (Washington: GPO, 1965); and P.L. 89-192, 79 Stat. 

822 (Sept. 21, 1965). 

142 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home to Erect a Memorial in the District of Columbia or its Environs, report to accompany H.J. Res. 641, 

89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1174 (Washington: GPO, 1965); and 

P.L. 89-325, 79 Stat. 1215 (Nov. 7, 1965).

143 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Conveyance to the City of Salem, Illinois, a Statue of William 

Jennings Bryan, report to accompany H.R. 5507, 93rd Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 1253 (Washington: GPO, 1974); and P.L. 93-432, 

88 Stat. 1186-1187 (Oct. 4, 1974).

144 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to Erect a Memorial in Honor of the 

Fifty-Six Signers of the Declaration of Independence in Constitution 

Gardens in DC, report to accompany H.R. 2960, 95th Cong., 1st 

sess., H. Rept. 95-462, pt. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1977); and P.L. 

95-260, 92 Stat. 197-198 (Apr. 17, 1978).

145 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, National 

Law Enforcement Heroes Memorial, report to accompany H. Res. 

482, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1084 (Washington: GPO, 

1984); and P.L. 89-534, 98 Stat. 2712 (Oct. 19, 1984).

146 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Go For Broke National Veterans Association Foundation 

to Establish a Memorial in the District of Columbia or its Environs 

to Honor Japanese American Patriotism in World War, report to 

accompany H.J. Res. 277, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 102-727 

(Washington: GPO, 1992); and P.L. 102-502, 106 Stat. 3273-3274 

(Oct. 24, 1992).

147 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Erection in the District of Columbia of a Statue of Simon Bolivar, report to accompany H.J. Res. 240, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

897 (Washington: GPO, 1949); P.L. 157, 63 Stat. 406 (July 5, 1949); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the 

Act of July 5, 1949 (Public Law 157, 81st Cong.), report to accompany 

H.J. Res. 481, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1659 (Washington: 

GPO, 1954); and P.L. 397, 68 Stat. 250 (June 14, 1954). 

148 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Erecting a Memorial to the Memory of Mohandas K. Gandhi, report to 

accompany H.J. Res. 295, 81st Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1054 

(Washington: GPO, 1949); P.L. 309, 63 Stat. 699 (Sept. 28, 1949); 

U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Extending 

the Time for the Erection of a Memorial to the Memory of Mohandas 

K. Gandhi, report to accompany H.J. Res. 508, 83rd Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 1660 (Washington: GPO, 1953); and P.L. 394, 68 

Stat. 249 (June 10, 1954).

149 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Gift From the Ericsson Memorial Committee 

of the United States, report to accompany S.J. Res. 93, 84th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 1900 (Washington: GPO, 1956); and P.L. 910, 

70 Stat. 922 (Aug. 1956).

150 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Kahlil 

Gibran Memorial, report to accompany H.J. Res. 580, 98th Cong., 

2nd sess., H. Rept. 98-1051 (Washington: GPO, 1984); and P.L. 

98-537, 98 Stat. 2715 (Oct. 19, 1984).

151 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Guidelines for the Consideration of Memorials Under the Commemorative 

Works Act, prepared by the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials of the Committee on House Administration, 103rd Cong., 2nd

sess., committee print (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 1.

152 Dorothy Ganfield Fowler, “Precursors of the Hatch Act,” 

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 47, Sept. 1960, p. 249. See 

also discussion in Robert Vaughn, “Restrictions on the Political 

Activities of Public Employees: Th e Hatch Act and Beyond,” George 

Washington University Law Review, vol. 44, May 1976, pp. 516–517; 

and Biller v. United States Merit System Protection Board, 863 F.2d 

1079, 1084 (2nd Cir. 1988).

153 U.S. Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel, A Commission Report: Findings and Recommendations, Volume 

I (Washington 1968), pp. 7–9; U.S. Congress, House, Committee 

on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Manpower and 

Civil Service, History of Civil Service Merit Systems of the United 

States and Selected Foreign Countries, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., committee 

print 94-29 (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 3–10; Dorothy Ganfi eld 

Fowler, “Precursors of the Hatch Act,” Mississippi Valley Historical 

Review, vol. 47, Sept. 1960, pp. 247–256. Note, for example, Act 

of Aug. 15, 1876, ch. 287, sec. 9, 19 Stat. 169, concerning political 

contributions from federal workers.

154 22 Stat. 403 (Jan. 16, 1883).

155 See 22 Stat. 404-407, secs. 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

156 Executive Order No. 642, June 3, 1907, amending Civil Service Rule I, which had been adopted originally in 1883 after passage 

of the Pendleton Act. Merit system civil service employees were 

only 10% of the federal workforce at the time of the passage of the 

Pendleton Civil Service Act in 1883, and increased to 32% of the 

federal workforce at the time of the passage of the Hatch Act in 

1939, to the current fi gure of more than 80% of all federal workers 

being in the competitive civil service. See: U.S. Congress, House, 

Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil Service, Subcommittee on 
NON-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACTIVITIES 443

Manpower and Civil Service, History of Civil Service Merit Systems 

of the United States and Selected Foreign Countries, 94th Cong., 2nd

sess., Committee Print 94-29 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 8; and 

2006 Federal Personnel Guide (Horsham, PA: LRP Publications, 

2005), p. 14.

157 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil 

Service, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service, History of 

Civil Service Merit Systems of the United States and Selected Foreign 

Countries, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print 94-29 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 254.

158 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Post Offi ce and Civil 

Service, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service, History of 

Civil Service Merit Systems of the United States and Selected Foreign 

Countries, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print 94-29 (Washington GPO 1976), p. 254.

159 Th e Special Committee was established and authorized by 

S. Res. 283, 75th Congress, May 27, 1938, and S. Res. 290, 75th

Congress, June 16, 1938. “Investigation of Senatorial Campaign 

Expenditures,” Congressional Record, vol. 83, May 27, 1938, pp. 

7361–7362; and “Investigation of Lobbying Activities,” Congressional Record, vol. 83, June 16, 1938, pp. 9553–9561.

160 U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee to Investigate Senatorial Campaign Expenditures and Use of Government Funds in 

1938, Investigation of Senatorial Campaign Expenditures and Use of 

Government Funds, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate 

Senatorial Campaign Expenditures and Use of Governmental Funds 

in 1938, pursuant to S. Res. 283, 75th Congress, and S. Res. 290, 

75th Congress, 2 pts., 76th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 1 (Washington: 

GPO, 1939).

161 Two bills (S. 212 and S. 213, 76th Congress) were originally introduced by Senator Hatch the day following the release of the Special 

Committee’s report. Th e two bills were later consolidated into one 

bill, S. 1871 (76th Congress), which was introduced on Mar. 20, 1939, 

was co-sponsored by Senators Hatch, Sheppard, and Warren R. Austin. S. 1871, was eventually enacted, as amended, and became known 

as the “Hatch Act.” P.L. 252, 53 Stat. 1147-1149 (Aug. 2, 1939).

162 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Privileges and Elections, 

Prevention of Pernicious Political Activity, report to accompany S. 

1781, 76th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 221 (Washington: GPO, 1939).

163 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary, Preventing Pernicious Political Activities, report to accompany S. 1871, 76th 

Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 1028 (Washington: GPO, 1939).

164 P.L. 252, 53 Stat. 1147-1149 (Aug. 2, 1939).

165 P.L. 553, 54 Stat. 767-772 (July 19, 1940), see now 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 1501 et seq.

166 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Hatch Act, report to accompany H.R. 1243, 81st Cong., 1st

sess., H. Rept. 21 (Washington: GPO, 1949).

167 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Hatch Act, report to accompany H.R. 9023, 81st Cong., 2nd

sess., H. Rept. 2717 (Washington: GPO, 1950).

168 U.S. Congress, House, Amending the Hatch Act: Message From 

the President of the United States Returning Without Approval the Bill 

(H.R. 1243) to Amend the Hatch Act, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 

630 (Washington: GPO, 1950), p. 2.

169 P.L. 732, 64 Stat. 475-476 (Aug. 25, 1950).

170 P.L. 87-753, 76 Stat. 750 (Oct. 5, 1962). See U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Proposed Amendment to the 

Hatch Political Activities Act, hearing on H.R. 12163 and 12661, 

87th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24, 1962; and U.S. Congress, Committee 

on House Administration, Amending Section 9(b) of the Act Entitled 

“An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities” (the Hatch Political 

Activities Act) to Eliminate the Requirement Th at the Civil Service 

Commission Impose No Penalty Less Th an 90 Days’ Suspension for Any 

Violation of Section 9 of the Act, report to accompany H.R. 12661, 

87th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2033 (Washington: GPO, 1962).

171 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, To Amend the Hatch Act, unpublished 

hearings on H.R. 1418, 83rd Congress, 2nd sess., Feb. 16 and 24, 

1954, LexisNexis Hearing ID: HRG-1954-ADH-0003, and HRG1954-ADH-0004.

172 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending Certain Provisions of the Hatch Act, report to accompany H.R. 

7745, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2638 (Washington: GPO, 

1954); U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, To Amend Certain Federal Election Laws, 

unpublished hearings on H.R. 3084, H.R. 3139, H.R. 1767, and 

H. Con. Res. 94, 84th Cong., 1st sess., May 4, May 18, 1955, June 

17, July 7, 1955, LexisNexis Hearing ID: HRG-1955-ADH-0005, 

HRG-1955-ADH-0002, HRG-1955-ADH-0003, and HRG-1955-

ADH-0004; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending the Hatch Act, report to accompany H.R. 3084, 

H. Rept. 1424, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., (Washington: GPO, 1955).

173 “Amending the Hatch Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 100, 

Aug. 5, 1954, pp. 13486–13487.

174 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Proposed Investigation and Study of the 

Operation and Enforcement of the Hatch Act, the Corrupt Practices 

Act, and other Federal Regulations Governing Elections, hearings on 

H.R. 1167 and H.R. 433, 85th Cong., 1st sess., July 19 and Aug. 1, 

1957 (Washington: GPO, 1957).

175 H. Res. 406, Congressional Record, Aug. 22, 1957, pp. 15654–

15656.

176 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Restrictions of Political Activities, Th e Investigation and Study on Restrictions of Political Activities Under the 

Hatch Act, Held in Hyattsville, MD, and Alexandria, VA, 85th Cong., 

2nd sess., June 19 and 20, 1958 (Washington: GPO, 1958).
444 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

177 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report 

of the Special Committee to Investigate and Study the Operation and 

Enforcement of the Hatch Political Activities Act Pursuant to H. Res. 

406, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 2707 (Washington: GPO, 1959).

178 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Proposed Amendments to the Hatch Political 

Activities Act, unpublished hearings on H.R. 696, 86th Cong., 1st and 

2nd sess., Apr. 8, 1959, Mar. 2, 1960, and May 5, 1960 (Washington: 

GPO, 1960). LexisNexis Hearing ID: HRG-1959-ADH-0002, and 

HRG-1960-ADH-0001.

179 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Proposed Amendments to the Hatch Political 

Activities Act, hearings on H.R. 12163, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24 

and Aug. 13, 1962 (Washington: GPO, 1962).

180 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Creating a Bipartisan Commission to Study Federal Laws Limiting Political 

Activity by Offi cers and Employees of Government, 89th Cong., 2nd 

sess., H. Rept. 2018 (Washington: GPO, 1966); and P.L. 89-617, 

80 Stat. 868-869 (Oct. 3, 1966).

181 United States, Commission on Political Activity of Government 

Personnel, Findings and Recommendations (Washington: GPO, 

1968), 3 vols.

182 See, e.g., U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Amending Title 5, United States Code, to Make Exemption From 

the Prohibition Against Participation in Political Activities Applicable 

to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and Members of the 

District of Columbia Council, report to accompany H.R. 15710, 

90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 1175 (Washington: GPO, 1968) 

(note that similar exemptions were eventually enacted by Congress 

in: P.L. 93-268, 88 Stat. 85-87 (Apr. 17, 1974)); U.S. Congress, 

Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, 

Legislation to Amend the Hatch Act, unpublished hearing on H.R. 

914, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 29, 1972. LexisNexis Hearing ID: 

HRG-1972-ADH-0008.

183 P.L. 93-443, Title IV, Sec. 401, 88 Stat. 1290 (Oct. 15, 1974). 

State and local employees covered by the federal Hatch Act were, and 

still remain, under the prohibitions on (1) using their offi cial authority to infl uence an election, (2) coercing or attempting to coerce 

anyone into making political contributions, and (3) being candidates 

for offi ce in a partisan election. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1502.

184 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, report to accompany 

H.R. 16090, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 93-1239 (Washington: 

GPO, 1974), p. 11.

185 U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the 

House of Representatives of the One Hundred Th ird Congress, 102nd 

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 102-405 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 400. 

Th e substantial restrictions on voluntary, off -duty political activities 

and political participation of most federal employees in the executive 

branch were removed, while on-duty restrictions and prohibitions on 

coercion strengthened, in the “Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 

1993,” P.L. 103-94, 107 Stat. 1001-1011 (Oct. 6, 1993).

186 U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules of the 

House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 109th

Cong., 2nd sess., H. Doc. 109-157 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 462.
CONCLUSION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 445

XI. CONCLUSION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Th e Committee on House Administration was established 

in 1947 to better equip the House of Representatives to deal 

with a post-war world in which ever-increasing demands 

were placed on Congress and its Members. Now in its seventh decade of existence, the Committee can look back at a 

changed world, and a changed Committee, with pride at a 

bipartisan record of service and legislative accomplishment. 

Much of the focus of the Committee over the years has 

been internal—guiding Members in the operation of their 

offi ces and managing the countless logistical and administrative details that are necessary for a large and complex 

entity like the U.S. House of Representatives to operate. It 

has done so successfully. During its existence, the Committee has helped transform the House into a 21st century 

institution with a billion-dollar budget and vital responsibilities to the nation. 

Th e Committee has been at the forefront of important 

legislative accomplishments as well, helping enact laws to 

reform and regulate the campaign fi nance system, improve 

the conduct of elections and the effi ciency of voting systems, 

authorize the erection of monuments and museums to preserve our nation’s shared heritage, modernize the U.S. Capitol 

complex for better public access and security, ensure that civil 

rights and worker protections apply to the legislative branch, 

and preserve intellectual treasures at the Library of Congress, 

to name but a few.

But even as the Committee and its Members continue 

to perform their work, they can look to the future and the 

questions it will likely hold: Will the legislative process in the 

House, which has always been paper-based, become paperless, 

with, for example, committee markup meetings where legislators amend and vote on measures entirely electronically? 

As communications technology evolves, can the House of 

Representatives remain the modern, responsive institution 

which constituents expect and which the Founders intended? 

In a budget-constrained environment, can the House as an 

institution do more with less? And in a world in which new 

security threats proliferate daily, how will the body continue 

to balance safety with the open character of our democratic 

system? 

While no one knows what the future holds, the Committee on House Administration will doubtless continue to 

be at the forefront of life in the House of Representatives 

and the work of its Members. One can imagine that in its 

second 60 years of life, the Committee will help the People’s 

House deal with a world as changed and demanding as the 

one which emerged from World War II and motivated the 

creation of the Committee itself. 

APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE RECORDS 447

APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE RECORDS

Congress, in fulfi lling its legislative, oversight, a nd investigative duties, produces a variety of offi cial records. An examination of this “paper trail” may allow researchers a better understanding of the legislative process, the work of particular 

committees and Members, and the history of various issues 

and pieces of legislation.

In producing the present study of the Committee on 

House Administration, the authors examined numerous 

published and unpublished sources. Additionally, offi cial government records were supplemented with material from the 

press, academic publications, and other secondary sources. 

Offi cial records of the Committee on House Administration and its predecessors are housed at the Center for 

Legislative Archives at the National Archives and Records 

Administration in Washington, D.C., in accordance with 

provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

and the Federal Records Act of 1950.1 Records of the U.S. 

House of Representatives comprise Record Group 233 at the 

National Archives, although they remain the property of the 

House. Th ese records are preserved and made available to 

researchers in accordance with House Rule VII.2 Th e Rule 

provides for access to most records after they have been in 

existence for 30 years. Exceptions include executive session 

transcripts and investigative and personnel records, which 

are available after 50 years. Th e Clerk also has the authority 

to close any record if its release is deemed “detrimental to the 

public interest or inconsistent with the rights and privileges 

of the House.”3

It is worth noting that the Committee on House 

Administration, the subject of this study, has been involved 

in records preservation and access throughout its history. It 

has reported bills authorizing the printing as House documents of some of the fi nding aids listed below and considered measures pertaining to certain offi cial records. Prior to 

1953, records of the House not previously made public were 

not available for research. In that year, the Committee considered H. Res. 288 (83rd Congress), which authorized the 

Clerk of the House to permit public access to any records 

more than 50 years old or previously made public. The 

resolution was reported favorably by the Committee and 

agreed to by the House on June 16, 1953.4 Correspondence 

between the Clerk of the House, Committee on House 

Administration Chairman Karl Le Compte, and Archivist 

of the United States Wayne Grover found in the Committee’s records demonstrates its involvement in this revision.5

Th e records show consideration for fairness among researchers, policies previously set by the Senate, and a plea from 

the academic community. Although not incorporated into 

the House Rules, this resolution served as precedent for 

many years. A revision instituting current closure periods 

was considered by the House Rules Committee and incorporated into the Rules for the 101st Congress.6

 House Rule 

VII grants the Committee on House Administration the 

authority to “prescribe guidelines and regulations governing 

the applicability and implementation of this rule.”7

Th e Guide to Records of the United States House of Representatives at the National Archives, 1789–1989: Bicentennial 

Edition (H. Doc. 100-245), now accessible on the homepage 

of the Center for Legislative Archives, was prepared to help 

researchers navigate the vast holdings at the National Archives 

by providing information on the scope and content of the 

records of the House. Chapter 12 of the Guide describes records 

of the Committee on House Administration and its predecessors. Both the full Committee and its Subcommittee on 

Procurement and Printing considered legislation authorizing 

the printing of the Guide during the 100th Congress before the 

resolution was discharged by unanimous consent. A companion volume, the Guide to the Records of the United States Senate 
448 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

at the National Archives, 1789–1989: Bicentennial Edition (S. 

Doc. 100-42), is also available on the Center’s website and 

describes Record Group 46, records of the U.S. Senate. 

While committees and offi cers are required to archive 

their offi cial records, the fi les generated by a Member’s personal offi ce are the property of the Member. Members may 

choose to designate a repository—usually within their district or state—for their personal records. Preservation and 

access policies are determined by agreement between the 

Member and host institution. Th e diversity is demonstrated 

by a survey of selected past Chairmen of the Committee on 

House Administration; the papers of Wayne Hays are at 

Ohio University, and Omar Burleson’s papers are at Abilene 

Christian University, while no known repository exists for 

Samuel Friedel’s papers. 

Researchers can locate these collections using the print 

editions of the Guide to Research Collections of Former Members of the United States House of Representatives, 1789–1987,

and the Guide to Research Collections of Former United States 

Senators, 1789–1995, as well as updated information in the 

online version of the Biographical Directory of the United 

States Congress. Those interested in conducting archival 

research may also wish to contact professional organizations like the Society of American Archivists Congressional 

Papers Roundtable and the Association of Centers for the 

Study of Congress.

Th e Constitution allows the House to determine its own 

rules of procedure. Th e House Rules, adopted each Congress, help identify the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

House Administration, the obligations incumbent upon it, 

and various administrative provisions relevant for this study. 

Th e House Rules and Manual, offi cially titled Constitution, 

Jeff erson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, 

details the Rules of the House including reference notes and 

annotations prepared by the House parliamentarian and is 

usually authorized by resolution each Congress. 

Parliamentary procedure in the House is also compiled 

in published precedents. Prepared by the House parliamentarian, these published sources include the most signifi cant 

rulings of the chair and are organized by topic. Th e DeschlerBrown Precedents, named after Louis Deschler, the House 

Parliamentarian from 1928–1974, who fi rst compiled this 

publication, covers the years of the Committee’s existence. 

Hinds’ and Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives 

of the United States are predecessor publications that contain 

selected rulings of the chair, and other precedents established, 

between 1789 and 1936.

A number of U.S. government publications provide 

information on laws and bills that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Th e United States Statutes at Large, 

published by the Government Printing Offi ce, is the offi cial 

source for the laws and resolutions passed by Congress. Th ese 

laws are consolidated in the U.S. Code, which is published 

every six years with annual supplements. Th e Code is arranged 

by subject into 50 titles, with Title 2 covering laws pertaining 

to Congress. 

Th e House Journal, which fulfi lls the requirement in 

Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution that each chamber 

“keep a Journal of its Proceedings,” has been published since 

the fi rst Congress in 1789. It chronicles actions including 

motions off ered, bills introduced and committees of reference, amendments off ered and agreed to, and voting actions. 

Verbatim debate in the House and Senate, as well as submitted materials and speeches, have been included in the 

Congressional Record since 1873, while predecessor sources 

off er insight into earlier fl oor debate. Th ese earlier publications include the Annals of Congress, which provides debates 

from 1789 to 1824, although these were not compiled contemporaneously, the Register of Debates (1824–37), and the 

Congressional Globe (1833–73). 

The United States Congressional Serial Set contains 

reports and documents issued by the House and Senate. 

Th e C.I.S. U.S. Serial Set Index, 1789–1969, published by 

the Congressional Information Service (C.I.S.) and updated 

with annual supplements since 1970, allows researchers 

to easily identify entries from the Committee. C.I.S. also 

publishes separate indexes of published and unpublished 

committee hearings. 
APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE RECORDS 449

Committee activity reports published after the conclusion of a Congress provide a narrative description of the Committee’s actions over the course of that Congress. Th e Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which fi rst mandated such 

reports, exempted the Committee on House Administration. 

Th at exemption was removed by the Committee Reform 

Amendments of 1974,8 and the Committee has published 

activity reports since the 94th Congress in accordance with 

House Rule XI. Th ese reports may include the jurisdiction 

and work of the Committee (and its former subcommittees, 

which existed prior to the 104th Congress), summaries of 

legislation, investigations, hearings, oversight activities, and 

the titles of documents issued by the Committee. 

Committee Calendars, which were published by the Committee from its inception at the beginning of the 80th Congress 

through the 103rd Congress, provide a listing of Committee 

business and are particularly useful for locating information 

for the years prior to the publication of the activity reports. Th e 

Calendars, which are compiled and printed at the discretion of 

the Committee, variously have included subcommittee rosters 

and other organizational information, measures received, 

actions taken, subsequent legislative actions on measures 

considered by the committee, and funds the committee has 

authorized for studies by other committees. 

Th e primary sources used in the research for this volume 

have been supplemented by a plethora of secondary sources, 

including academic studies and journalistic publications. Th ese 

sources have been useful in providing context to some of the 

Committee’s actions as well as additional information and 

analysis. Congressional Quarterly Inc., which covered politics 

in Washington since 1945, has produced a number of publications, including CQ Weekly, CQ Almanac, and the CQ Guide 

to Congress, that provide reference information, summaries of 

congressional activity. In addition, Roll Call and Th e Hill, as the 

community newspapers of Capitol Hill, off er coverage of both 

national and local issues from the congressional perspective. 

Founded in 1955 and 1994, respectively, these papers proved 

to be a useful source of information on some of the duties 

performed by the Committee as the “Mayor of Capitol Hill.”

Endnotes

1 P.L. 601, ch.753, 60 Stat 833, sec. 140 (Aug. 2, 1946); and P.L. 

81-754, 64 Stat 583 (Sept. 5, 1950).

2 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jeff erson’s Manual, and Rules 

of the House of Representatives of the United States, One Hundred 

Tenth Congress, compiled by John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian, H. 

Doc. 109-157, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2007), 

sec. 695.

3 Ibid.

4 H. Res. 288 (83rd Cong.).

5 Access to Archived Records (HR83A-F8.1), Records of the Committee on House Administration; Records of the House of Representatives, Record Group 233; National Archives, Washington, 

DC.

6 House Rule XXXVI, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, 

vol. 135, Jan. 3, 1989, pp. 72–73. 

7 Ibid.

8 H. Res. 988 (93rd Cong.).

APPENDIX B. TABLES 451

APPENDIX B. TABLES

Table I

Chronological Listing of Members of the Committee on House Administration, 1947–2011

80th Congress (1947–1948)

Chairman Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) Ranking Member Mary T. Norton (D-NJ)

Ralph M. Gamble (R-NY) John W. McCormack (D-MA)

Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Tom Pickett (D-TX)

Frank L. Sundstrom (R-NJ) Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA)

Charles W. Vursell (R-IL) Burr P. Harrison (D-VA)

Gerald W. Landis (R-IN) Otto E. Passman (D-LA)

William C. Cole (R-MO) Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) Hugh A. Meade (D-MD)

Fred. E. Busbey (R-IL) Toby Morris (D-OK)

James Gallagher (R-PA) George A. Smathers (D-FL)

Gregory McMahon (R-NY) John Bell Williams (D-MS)

R. Walter Riehlman (R-NY)

J. Caleb Boggs (R-DE)

Howard A. Coffi n (R-MI)

Mid-Congress replacements:

Ralph Harvey (R-IN) Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX)

Vito Marcantonio (American Labor Party-NY)

81st Congress (1949–1950)

Chairman Mary T. Norton (D-NJ) Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Burr P. Harrison (D-VA) Earl Wilson (R-IN)

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Benjamin F. James (R-PA)

George W. Smathers (D-FL) William B. Widnall (R-NJ)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX)
452 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

81st Congress (1949–1950)

James W. Trimble (D-AR)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

William M. Wheeler (D-GA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Anthony Cavalcante (D-PA)

George H. Christopher (D-MO)

Chase Going Woodhouse (D-CT)

Edna F. Kelly (D-NY)

Vito Marcantonio (American Labor Party-NY)

82nd Congress (1951–1952)

Chairman Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX) Edmund P. Radwan (R-NY)

James W. Trimble (D-AR) William K. Van Pelt (R-WI)

Carl Albert (D-OK) Edward L. Sittler Jr. (R-PA)

William M. Wheeler (D-GA) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Edna F. Kelly (D-NY)

Harry P. O’Neill (D-PA)

Clinton D. McKinnon (D-CA)

Reva Z. B. Bosone (D-UT)

Charles R. Howell (D-NJ)

Mid-Congress replacements:

Wayne N. Aspinall (D-CO) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

Victor L. Anfuso (D-NY)

Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Robert Tripp Ross (R-NY)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 453

83rd Congress (1953–1954)

Chairman Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) Ranking Member Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) 

Jan. 14, 1953–Feb. 3, 1953

Ranking Member Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) 

Feb. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

Albert P. Morano (R-CT) Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX)

Paul F. Schenck (R-OH) James W. Trimble (D-AR)

Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA) Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Robert D. Harrison (R-NE) Courtney W. Campbell (D-FL)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) John E. Moss Jr. (D-CA)

John B. Bennett (R-MI) Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD)

William K. Van Pelt (R-WI) John L. Pilcher (D-GA)

Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

William C. Cole (R-MO)

Gordon H. Scherer (R-OH)

Oliver P. Bolton (R-OH)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

William E. Neal (R-WV) Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC)

D. Bailey Merrill (R-IN) Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

84th Congress (1955–1956)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

James W. Trimble (D-AR) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

John E. Moss Jr. (D-CA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Oliver P. Bolton (R-OH)

Dowdy, John V. (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

George S. Long (D-LA) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

James A. Haley (D-FL)

Hugh Q. Alexander (D-NC)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Paul C. Jones (D-MO)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA)
454 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

84th Congress (1955–1956)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

85th Congress (1957–1958)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

George S. Long (D-LA) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) John H. Ray (R-NY)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Carl A. Elliott (D-AL)

Edith S. Green (D-OR)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

86th Congress (1959–1960)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) John H. Ray (R-NY)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) William S. Mailliard (R-CA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Edna Oakes Simpson (R-IL)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Carl A. Elliott (D-AL)

Edith S. Green (D-OR)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

John M. Slack Jr. (D-WV)

Robert R. Casey (D-TX)

Steven V. Carter (D-IA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 455

86th Congress (1959–1960)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Newell A. George (D-KS) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

John H. Kyl (R-IA)

87th Congress (1961–1962)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Edgar W. Hiestand (R-CA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) John B. Anderson (R-IL)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Walter L. McVey (R-KS)

Edith S. Green (D-OR)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

John J. McFall (D-CA)

Robert N. Giamo (D-CT)

Hugh L. Carey (D-NY)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA)

88th Congress (1963–1964)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) John B. Anderson (R-IL)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

John J. McFall (D-CA) Joe Skubitz (R-KS)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY)
456 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

88th Congress (1963–1964)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

John Brademas (D-IN) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John W. Davis (D-GA)

89th Congress (1965–1966)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) John N. Erlenborn (R-IL)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

John Brademas (D-IN)

John W. Davis (D-GA)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Barber B. Conable, Jr. (R-NY)

James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

90th Congress (1967–1968)

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Jan. 18, 1967–July 30, 1968 Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD)

July 30, 1968–Jan. 3, 1969

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 457

90th Congress (1967–1968)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA) Barber B. Conable, Jr. (R-NY)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Albert H. Quie (R-MN)

John Brademas (D-IN) Frederick D. Schwengel (R-IA)

John W. Davis (D-GA)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

William O. Cowger (R-KY)

Robert C. McEwen (R-NY)

91st Congress (1969–1970)

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Jan. 3, 1969–Feb. 1, 1970

Ranking Member Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Feb. 1, 1970–Jan. 3, 1971

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL) Albert H. Quie (R-MN)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Frederick D. Schwengel (R-IA)

John Brademas (D-IN) William O. Cowger (R-KY)

John W. Davis (D-GA) Robert C. McEwen (R-NY)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Th omas S. Gettys (D-SC)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY) James Harvey (R-MI)

Jerry L. Pettis (R-CA)

Orval H. Hansen (R-ID)

Phillip M. Crane (R-IL)

John S. Wold (R-WY)

John G. Schmitz (R-CA)
458 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

92nd Congress (1971–1972)

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Ranking Member Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (D-LA) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

John H. Dent (D-PA) Frederick D. Schwengel (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Robert C. McEwen (R-NY)

John Brademas (D-IN) James Harvey (R-MI)

John W. Davis (D-GA) Orval H. Hansen (R-ID)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) Phillip M. Crane (R-IL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) John G. Schmitz (R-CA)

Th omas S. Gettys (D-SC)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Ed Jones (D-TN) John H. Ware III (R-PA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) Victor V. Veysey (R-CA)

William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

93rd Congress (1973–1974)

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Ranking Member Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Jan. 6, 1973–Jan. 24, 1973

Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL),

Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James Harvey (R-MI)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Orval H. Hansen (R-ID)

John Brademas (D-IN) Phillip M. Crane (R-IL)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) John H. Ware III (R-PA)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Victor V. Veysey (R-CA)

Th omas S. Gettys (D-SC) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY) James F. Hastings (R-NY)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Edward I. Koch (D-NY)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 459

93rd Congress (1973–1974)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA) Harold V. Froehlich (R-WI)

M. Caldwell Butler (R-VA)

94th Congress (1975–1976)

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Jan. 23, 1975–June 21, 1976 Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

June 23, 1976–Jan. 3, 1977

John H. Dent (D-PA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John Brademas (D-IN) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) M. Caldwell Butler (R-VA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Marjorie S. Holt (R-MD)

Ed Jones (D-TN) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Corinne C. (Lindy) Boggs (D-LA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Edward C. Pattison (D-NY) Ronald E. Paul (R-TX)

95th Congress (1977–1978)

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John H. Dent (D-PA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John Brademas (D-IN) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) David A. Stockman (R-MI)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)
460 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

95th Congress (1977–1978)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Edward C. Pattison (D-NY)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA)

Joseph S. Ammerman (D-PA)

96th Congress (1979–1980)

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

[Acting Chair on June 18, 1980 during 

interruption of service by Th ompson]

John Brademas (D-IN) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) David A. Stockman (R-MI)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA) Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. (R-SC)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Peter A. Peyser (D-NY)

William Ratchford (D-CT)

Victor H. Fazio (D-CA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Loeffl er, Th omas G. (R-TX)

97th Congress (1981–1982)

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Gary A. Lee (R-NY)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) James K. Coyne (R-PA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 461

97th Congress (1981–1982)

John L. Burton (D-CA) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

William Ratchford (D-CT)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

98th Congress (1983–1984)

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Jan. 6, 1983–Sept. 6, 1984 Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Sept. 6, 1984–Jan. 3, 1985

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

William J. Coyne (D-PA) Rodney Chandler (R-WA)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

Anthony L. Coehlo (D-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV)

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

99th Congress (1985–1986)

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

Anthony L. Coelho (D-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

William L. Clay (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)
462 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

100th Congress (1987–1988)

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Anthony L. Coelho (D-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

William L. Clay (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-PA)

101st Congress (1989–1990)

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Ranking Member Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Jan. 3, 1989–April 10, 1989

Ranking Member William M. Th omas (R-CA)

April 10, 1989–Jan. 3, 1991

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) John P. Hiler (R-IN)

Anthony L. Coelho (D-CA) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

William L. Clay (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-PA)

Ronnie G. Flippo (D-AL)

J. Martin Frost III (D-TX)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY)

102nd Congress (1991–1992)

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Ranking Member William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-AL)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 463

102nd Congress (1991–1992)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

William L. Clay (D-MO) M. H. (Mickey) Edwards (R-OK)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-PA) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

J. Martin Frost III (D-TX)

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY)

Martin A. Russo (D-IL)

William H. Gray III (D-PA)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Dale Kildee (D-MI)

103rd Congress (1993–1994)

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Ranking Member William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-AL)

William L. Clay (D-MO) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

J. Martin Frost III (D-TX) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY) John A. Boehner (R-OH)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) Jennifer Dunn (R-WA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Dale Kildee (D-MI)

Butler Derrick (D-SC)

Barbara B. Kennelly (D-CT)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

104th Congress (1995–1996)

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA) Ranking Member Vic Fazio (D-CA)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Pat Roberts (R-KS) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John A. Boehner (R-OH) William J. Jeff erson (D-LA)

Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) Ed Pastor (D-AZ)

Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)
464 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

105th Congress (1997–1998)

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-OH) Ranking Member Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John A. Boehner (R-OH) Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Kay Granger (R-TX)

John L. Mica (R-FL)

106th Congress (1999–2000)

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-OH) Ranking Member Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John A. Boehner (R-OH) Jim Davis (D-FL)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

John L. Mica (R-FL)

Th omas W. Ewing (R-IL)

107th Congress (2001–2002)

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Ranking Member Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

John L. Mica (R-FL) Jim Davis (D-FL)

John Linder (R-GA)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA)

Th omas M. Reynolds (R-NY)

108th Congress (2003–2004)

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Ranking Member John B. Larson (D-CT)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

John L. Mica (R-FL) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

John Linder (R-GA)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA)

Th omas M. Reynolds (R-NY)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 465

109th Congress (2005–2006)

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

Jan. 5, 2005–Nov. 3, 2006

Ranking Member Juanita Millender-McDonald 

(D-CA)

Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Jan. 18, 2006–Nov. 3, 2006

[Acting Chair during interruption of service by Ney]

Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Nov. 4, 2006–Jan. 3, 2007

John L. Mica (R-FL)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA)

Th omas M. Reynolds (R-NY)

Candice Miller (R-MI)

110th Congress (2007–2008)

Chairman Juanita Millender-McDonald 

(D-CA), Jan. 4, 2007–April 22, 2007 Ranking Member Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

May 24, 2007–Jan. 3, 2009 Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA)

Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)

Mid-Congress Replacements:

Artur Davis (D-AL)

111th Congress (2009–2010)

Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA) Ranking Member Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA)

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX) Gregg Harper (R-MS)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)

Artur Davis (D-AL)

112th Congress (2011–2012)

Chairman Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA) Ranking Member Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Gregg Harper (R-MS) Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)

Aaron Schock (R-IL)

Richard Nugent (R-FL)

Todd Rokita (R-IN)
466 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Table II

Alphabetic Listing of Members of the Committee on House Administration, 1947–2011

Name Committee Service House Service

Abbitt, Watkins M. (D-VA) Jan. 19, 1956–Jan. 3, 1973

(84th–92nd Congresses) Feb. 17, 1948–Jan. 3, 1973

Albert, Carl (D-OK) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953 

(81st–82nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1977

Alexander, Hugh Q. (D-NC) Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 3, 1957 

(84th Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1963

Ammerman, Joseph S. (D-PA) Jan. 19, 1977–Jan. 3, 1979 

(95th Congress) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 3, 1979

Anderson, John B. (R-IL) Feb. 13, 1961–Feb. 4, 1963 

(87th–88th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1961–Jan. 3, 1981

Anfuso, Victor L. (D-NY) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1943 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1955–Jan. 3, 1963

Annunzio, Frank (D-IL) Feb. 4, 1971–Jan. 3, 1993

(92nd–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1993

Ashmore, Robert T.(D-SC) July 8, 1953–Jan. 3, 1969 

(83rd–90th Congresses) Jan. 6, 1953–Jan. 3, 1969

Aspinall, Wayne N. (D-CO) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1973

Badham, Robert E. (R-CA) Jan. 19, 1977–Jan. 3, 1989 

(95th–100th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 3, 1989

Barrett, William E. (R-NE) Feb. 6, 1991–Jan. 3, 1995 

(102nd–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1991–Jan. 3, 2001

Bates, Jim (D-CA) Jan. 6, 1983–Jan. 3, 1991 

(98th–101st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1983–Jan. 3, 1991

Bennett, John B. (R-MI) Jan. 14, 1953–Aug. 9, 1964 

(83rd–88th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1947–Aug. 9, 1964

Bingham, Jonathan B. (D-NY)

Jan. 18, 1965–Jan. 3, 1967 

(89th Congress) 

Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 24, 1973 

(91st–93rd Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1983

Bishop, Cecil W. (Runt) (R-IL) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1955 

(80th–83rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1941–Jan. 3, 1955

Boehner, John A. (R-OH) Jan. 5, 1993–Jan. 3, 2001 

(103rd–106th Congresses) Jan, 3, 1991–

Bolton, Oliver P. (R-OH) Jan. 19, 1953–Jan. 3, 1957 

(83rd–84th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1957
APPENDIX B. TABLES 467

Name Committee Service House Service

Boggs, Corinne C. (Lindy) (D-LA) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1977 

(94th Congress) Mar. 20, 1973–Jan. 3, 1991

Boggs, J. Caleb (R-DE) Jan. 14, 1947–Mar. 25, 1948 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1953

Bosone, Reva Z. B. (D-NJ) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953

Brademas, John (D-IN) Feb. 25, 1964–Jan. 3, 1981 

(88th –96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 3, 1981

Brady, Robert A. (D-PA) Feb. 5, 2003–present 

(108th–112th Congresses) May 19, 1998– 

Burke, J. Hebert (R-FL) Jan. 28, 1975–Jan. 3, 1979 

(94th–95th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1967–Jan. 3, 1979

Burleson, Omar T. (D-TX) Jan. 16, 1947–July 30, 1968 

(80th–90th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1947–Dec. 31, 1978

Burton, John L. (D-CA) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1983 

(94th–97th Congresses) June 4, 1974–Jan. 3, 1983

Busbey, Fred E. (R-IL) Jan. 14–Dec. 18, 1947 

(80th Congress)

Jan. 3, 1943–Jan. 3, 1945, 

Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949, 

Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1955

Butler, M. Caldwell (R-VA) Feb. 21, 1974–Mar. 21, 1975 

(93rd–94th Congresses) Nov. 7, 1972–Jan. 3, 1983

Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV) Jan. 19, 1953–Jan. 3, 1959 

(83rd–85th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1959

Campbell, Carroll A. Jr. (R-SC) Jan. 24, 1979–Jan. 3, 1981 

(96th Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1987

Campbell, Courtney W. (D-FL) Jan. 19, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955 

(83rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

Capuano, Michael E. (D-MA) Feb. 8, 2007–Jan. 3, 2011 

(110th–111th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1999–

Cardin, Benjamin L. (D-MD) Jan. 21, 1993–Jan. 3, 1995 

(103rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1987– Jan. 3, 2007

Carey, Hugh L. (D-NY) Feb. 6, 1961–Jan. 18, 1962 

(87th Congress) Jan. 3, 1961–Dec. 31, 1974

Carrigg, Joseph L.(R-PA) Feb. 4, 1952–Jan. 3, 1959 

(82nd–85th Congresses) Nov. 6, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959

Carter, Steven V. (D-IA) Jan. 7, 1959–Nov. 4, 1959 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Nov. 11, 1959

Casey, Robert R.(D-TX) Jan. 7, 1959–Jan. 3, 1961 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 22, 1976
468 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Cavalcante, Anthony (D-PA) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951 

(81st Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951

Chamberlain, Charles E. (R-MI) Mar. 5, 1959–Mar. 5, 1969 

(86th–91st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1957–Dec. 31, 1974

Chandler, Rodney (R-WA) Jan. 6, 1983–July 20, 1983 

(98th Congress) Jan. 3, 1983–Jan. 3, 1993

Christopher, George H. (D-MO) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951 

(81st Congress) Jan. 3, 1955–Jan. 23, 1959

Clay, William L., Sr. (D-MO) Jan. 30, 1985–Jan. 3, 1995 

(99th–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 3, 2001

Cleveland, James C. (R-NH) Oct. 20, 1966–Jan. 3, 1981 

(89th–96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1963–Jan. 3, 1981

Coelho, Anthony L. (D-CA) Jan. 6, 1983–June 15, 1989 

(98th–101st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979–June 15, 1989

Coffi n, Howard A. (R-MI) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

Cole, William C. (R-MO)

Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

(80th Congress) 

Jan. 14, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955 

(83rd Congress)

Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

Conable, Barber B. Jr. (R-NY) May 24, 1966–Jan. 26, 1967 

(89th–90th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1985

Corbett, Robert J. (R-PA)

Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) 

Jan. 14, 1953–Mar. 20, 1969 

(83rd–91st Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1945–Apr. 25, 1971

Cowger, William O. (R-KY) Jan. 26, 1967–Jan. 29, 1969 

(90th–91st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1967–Jan. 3, 1971

Coyne, James K. (R-PA) Jan. 28, 1981–Jan. 3, 1983 

(97th Congress) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 3, 1983

Coyne, William J. (D-PA) Jan. 28, 1981–Jan. 3, 1985 

(97th–98th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 3, 2003

Crane, Philip M. (R-IL) Dec. 23, 1969–Jan. 3, 1975 

(91st–93rd Congresses) Nov. 25, 1969–Jan. 3, 2005

Curtin, Willard S. (R-PA)

Jan. 19, 1959–Jan. 18, 1960 

(86th Congress) 

Jan. 24, 1963–Oct. 20, 1966 

(88th–89th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1957–Jan. 3, 1967
APPENDIX B. TABLES 469

Name Committee Service House Service

Davis, Artur (D-AL) May 3, 2007 – Jan. 3, 2011

(110th–111th Congresses) Jan. 2, 2003– Jan. 3, 2011

Davis, Jim (D-FL) Feb. 10, 1999–Jan. 3, 2003 

(106th–107th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1997– Jan. 3, 2007

Davis, John W. (D-GA) Feb. 25, 1964–Feb 4, 1971 

(88th–92nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1961–Jan. 3, 1975

Davis, Mendel J. (D-SC) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1981 

(94th–96th Congresses) Apr. 27, 1971–Jan. 3, 1981

Davis, Susan A. (D-CA) Feb. 8, 2007– Jan. 3, 2011

(110th–111th Congresses) Jan. 3, 2001–

Deane, Charles B. (D-NC) Feb. 26, 1947–Jan. 13, 1955

(80th–84th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1957

Dent, John H. (D-PA) Jan. 17, 1963–Jan. 3, 1979 

(88th–95th Congresses) Jan. 21, 1958–Jan. 3, 1979

Derrick, Butler (D-SC) Jan. 21, 1993–Jan. 3, 1995 

(103rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1975– Jan. 3, 1995

Devine, Samuel L. (R-OH) Feb. 4, 1963–June 27, 1979 

(88th–96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 3, 1981

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R-FL) Jan. 4, 1995–Jan. 3, 1997 

(104th Congress) Jan. 3, 1993–Jan. 3, 2011

Dickinson, William L. (R-AL) Jan. 21, 1965–Jan. 3, 1993 

(89th–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1993

Doolittle, John T. (R-CA) Jan. 31, 2001–Jan. 3, 2007 

(107th–109th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1991–

Dowdy, John V. (D-TX) Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 3, 1957 

(84th Congress) Sept. 23, 1952–Jan. 3, 1973

Dunn, Jennifer (R-WA) Feb. 4, 1993–Jan. 3, 1997 

(103rd–104th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1993–Jan. 3, 2005

Edwards, M. H. (Mickey) (R-OK) Feb. 6, 1991–Jan. 3, 1993 

(102nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 3, 1993

Ehlers, Vernon J. (R-MI) Jan. 4, 1995–Jan. 3, 2009

(104th–110th Congresses) Dec. 7, 1993– Jan. 3, 2011

Elliott, Carl A. (D-AL) Jan. 10, 1957–Jan. 3, 1961 

(85th–86th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1965

Erlenborn, John N. (R-IL) Jan. 21, 1965–May 24, 1966 

(89th Congress) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1985

Everett, Robert A. (D-TN) Apr. 3, 1958–Jan. 3, 1965 

(85th–88th Congresses) Feb. 1, 1958–Jan. 26, 1969
470 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Ewing, Th omas W. (R-IL) Jan. 6, 1999–Jan. 3, 2001 

(106th Congress) July 2, 1991–Jan. 3, 2001

Fattah, Chaka (D-PA) Feb. 10, 1999–Jan. 3, 2003 

(106th–107th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1995– 

Fazio, Victor H. (D-CA)

Jan. 24, 1979–Feb. 26, 1980 

(96th Congress) 

Jan. 11, 1995–Jan. 3, 1997 

(104th Congress)

Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1999

Flippo, Ronnie G. (D-AL) Jan. 19, 1989–Jan. 3, 1991 

(101st Congress) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 3, 1991

Foley, Th omas S. (D-WA) Jan. 6, 1983–Jan. 3, 1987 

(98th–99th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1995

Frenzel, William E. (R-MN)

Feb. 4, 1971–Mar. 21, 1975 

(92nd–94th Congresses) 

Jan. 19, 1977–Jan. 3, 1989 

(95th–100th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1971–Jan. 3, 1991

Friedel, Samuel N. (D-MD) Jan. 19, 1953–Jan. 3, 1971 

(83rd–91st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1971

Froehlich, Harold V. (R-WI) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975 

(93rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975

Frost, J. Martin III (D-TX) Jan. 19, 1989–Jan. 3, 1995 

(101st–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 2005

Gallagher, James (R-PA) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

Gamble, Ralph A. (R-NY) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Nov. 2, 1937–Jan. 3, 1957

Garmatz, Edward A. (D-MD) Dec. 4, 1947–Jan. 13, 1955 

(80th–84th Congresses) July 15, 1947–Jan. 3, 1973

Gaydos, Joseph M. (D-PA) Feb. 4, 1971–Jan. 3, 1993 

(92nd–102nd Congresses) Nov. 5, 1968–Jan. 3, 1993

Gejdenson, Samuel (D-CT) Jan. 30, 1985–Jan. 3, 1999 

(99th–105th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 3, 2001

George, Newell A. (D-KS) Feb. 10, 1960–Jan. 3, 1961 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 3, 1961

Gettys, Th omas S. (D-SC) Jan. 3, 1969–Dec. 31, 1974 

(91st–93rd Congresses) Nov. 3, 1964–Dec. 31, 1974

Giaimo, Robert N. (D-CT) Feb. 6, 1961–Jan. 3, 1963 

(87th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 3, 1981
APPENDIX B. TABLES 471

Name Committee Service House Service

Gibbons, Sam M. (D-FL) Jan. 17, 1963–Jan. 14, 1969

(88th–91st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1963–Jan. 3, 1997

Gillmor, Paul E. (R-OH) Jan. 20, 1989–Jan. 3, 1993 

(101st–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1989–Sept. 5, 2007

Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) Jan. 5, 2011–present

(112th Congress) Jan. 3, 2003–

Gingrich, Newton L. (R-GA) Jan. 24, 1979–Jan. 3, 1995 

(96th–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1999

Gonzalez, Charles A. (D-TX) Feb. 8, 2007–present 

(110th–112th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1999–

Goodell, Charles E. (R-NY) June 23, 1959–Sept. 9, 1968

(86th–90th Congresses) May 26, 1959–Sept. 9, 1968

Granger, Kay (R-TX) Jan. 7, 1997–Jan. 3, 1999 

(105th Congress) Jan. 3, 1997–

Gray, Kenneth J. (D-IL) Jan. 18, 1965–Dec. 31, 1974 

(89th–93rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1985–Jan. 3, 1989

Gray, William H. III (D-PA) Jan. 3, 1991–Sept. 11, 1991 

(102nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–Sept. 11, 1991

Green, Edith S. (D-OR) Jan. 10, 1957–Jan. 3, 1963 

(85th–87th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1955–Dec. 31, 1974

Halleck, Charles A. (R-IN)

Jan. 15, 1951–Apr. 29, 1954 

(82nd–83rd Congresses) 

Jan. 13, 1955–May 14, 1959 

(84th–86th Congresses)

Jan. 29, 1935–Jan. 3, 1969

Haley, James A. (D-FL) Jan. 13, 1955–March 16, 1955 

(84th Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1977

Hansen, Orval H. (R-ID) March 20, 1969–Jan. 3, 1975

(91st–93rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 3, 1975

Harper, Gregg (R-MS) Jan. 9, 2009–present

(111th–112th Congresses) Jan. 3, 2009–

Harrison, Burr P. (D-VA) Jan. 16, 1947–Jan. 3, 1951 

(80th–81st Congresses) Nov. 5, 1946–Jan. 3, 1963

Harrison, Robert D. (R-NE) Feb. 20, 1952–Jan. 3, 1959 

(82nd–85th Congresses) Dec. 4, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959

Harvey, James (R-IN) Jan. 29, 1969–Jan. 31, 1974 

(91st–93rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1961–Dec. 30, 1966

Harvey, Ralph (R-IN) Dec. 18, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1961–Dec. 30, 1966
472 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Hastings, James F. (R-NY) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975 

(93rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 20, 1976

Hawkins, Augustus F. (D-CA)

Jan. 18, 1965–Jan. 3, 1967

(89th Congress) 

Jan. 3, 1969–Sept. 6, 1984 

(91st–98th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1963–Jan. 3, 1991

Hays, Wayne L. (D-OH)

Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953 

(81st–82nd Congresses) 

Mar. 11, 1954–Sept. 1, 1976 

(83rd–94th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1949–Sept. 1, 1976

Hiestand, Edgar W. (R-CA) Feb. 13, 1961–Jan. 3, 1963 

(87th Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1963

Hiler, John P. (R-IN) Feb. 22, 1989–Jan. 3, 1991

(101st Congress) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 3, 1991

Hillings, Patrick J. (R-CA) Jan. 14, 1953–Jan. 3, 1959 

(83rd–85th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959

Holt, Marjorie S. (R-MD) Jan. 23, 1975–Apr. 14, 1976 

(94th Congress) Jan. 3, 1973–Jan. 3, 1987

Howell, Charles R. (D-NJ) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1955

Hoyer, Steny H. (D-MD) Jan. 3, 1991–Jan. 3, 2003 

(102nd–107th Congresses) May 19, 1981– 

James, Benjamin F. (R-PA) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951 

(81st Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1959

Jeff erson, William J. (D-LA) Jan. 11, 1995–Jan. 3, 1995 

(104th Congress) Jan. 3, 1991–Jan. 3, 2009

Jones, Ed (D-TN) Feb. 4, 1971–Jan. 3, 1989 

(92nd–100th Congresses) Nov. 2, 1948–Jan. 3, 1969

Jones, Paul C. (D-MO)

Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 12, 1951 

(81st–82nd Congresses) 

Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 3, 1969 

(84th–90th Congresses)

Nov. 2, 1948–Jan. 3, 1969

Kelly, Edna F. (D-NY) Jan. 26, 1950–Jan. 12, 1951 

(81st–82nd Congresses) Nov. 8, 1949–Jan. 3, 1969

Kennelly, Barbara B. (D-CT) Jan. 21, 1993–Jan. 3, 1995 

(103rd Congress) Jan. 12, 1982–Jan. 3, 1999

Kildee, Dale (D-MI) Oct. 30, 1991–Jan. 3, 1995 

(102nd–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1977–
APPENDIX B. TABLES 473

Name Committee Service House Service

Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. (D-MI) Feb. 5, 1997–Jan. 3, 1999 

(105th Congress) Jan. 3, 1997–Jan. 3, 2011

Kleczka, Gerald D. (D-WI) Jan. 24, 1991–Jan. 3, 1995 

(102nd–103rd Congresses) Apr. 4, 1984–Jan. 3, 2005

Koch, Edward I. (D-NY) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975 

(93rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1969–Dec. 31, 1977

Kolter, Joseph P. (D-PA) Sept. 10, 1987–Jan. 3, 1993 

(100th–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1983–Jan. 3, 1993

Kyl, John H. (R-IA)

Jan. 18, 1960–Jan. 3, 1965 

(86th–88th Congresses) 

Jan. 26, 1967–Feb. 4, 1971 

(90th–92nd Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1967–Jan. 3, 1973

Landis, Gerald W. (R-IN) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1939–Jan. 3, 1949

Larson, John B. (D-CT) Feb. 5, 2003–Jan. 3, 2005 

(108th Congress) Jan. 3, 1999–

Le Compte, Karl M. (R-IA) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1959 

(80th–85th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1939–Jan. 3, 1959

Lee, Gary A. (R-NY) Jan. 28, 1981–Jan. 3, 1983 

(97th Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1983

Lesinski, John Jr. (D-MI) Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 18, 1962 

(84th–87th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1965

Lewis, Charles Jeremy (Jerry) (R-CA) Jan. 24, 1979–Jan. 3, 1981 

(96th Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–

Linder, John (R-GA) July 27, 2000–Jan. 3, 2003 

(106th–107th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1993–Jan. 3, 2011

Lipscomb, Glenard P. (R-CA) Apr. 29, 1954–Feb. 1, 1970 

(83rd–91st Congresses) Nov. 10, 1953–Feb. 1, 1970

Livingston, Robert L. Jr. (R-LA) Feb. 6, 1991–Jan. 3, 1995 

(102nd–103rd Congresses) Aug. 27, 1977–Feb. 28, 1999

Loeffl er, Th omas G. (R-TX) June 27, 1979–Jan. 3, 1981 

(96th Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1987

Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) Feb. 16, 2005–present 

(109th–112th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1995–

Long, George S. (D-LA) Jan. 13, 1955–Mar. 22, 1958 

(84th–85th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Mar. 22, 1958

Lungren, Daniel E. (R-CA) Jan. 4, 2007–Jan. 3, 2013 

(110th–112th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1989, 

Jan. 3, 2005– Jan. 3, 2013
474 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Mailliard, William S. (R-CA) Jan. 19, 1959–Jan. 3, 1961 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Mar. 5, 1974

Manton, Th omas J. (D-NY) Oct. 16, 1989–Jan. 3, 1995 

(101st–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1985–Jan. 3, 1999

Marcantonio, Vito 

(American Labor-NY)

Mar. 25, 1948–Jan. 3, 1951 

(80th–81st Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1935–Jan. 3, 1957, 

Jan. 3, 1939–Jan. 3, 1951

Martin, Lynn M. (R-IL) Jan. 28, 1981–June 8, 1983 

(97th–98th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 3, 1991

Mathis, M. Dawson (D-GA) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1977 

(93rd–94th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1971–Jan. 3, 1981

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) Jan. 4, 2007–Jan. 3, 2011

(110th–111th Congresses) Jan. 3, 2007–

McCormack, John W. (D-MA) Jan. 16–Feb. 26, 1947 

(80th Congress) Nov. 6, 1928–Jan. 3, 1971

McEwen, Robert C. (R-NY) Sept. 18, 1968–Feb. 4, 1971 

(90th–92nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1965–Jan. 3, 1981

McFall, John J. (D-CA) Feb. 6, 1961–Dec. 10, 1963 

(87th–88th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1957–Dec. 31, 1978

McKinnon, Clinton D. (D-CA) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953

McMahon, Gregory (R-NY) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

McVey, Walter L. (R-KA) Feb. 13, 1961–Jan. 3, 1963 

(87th Congress) Jan. 3, 1961–Jan. 3, 1963

Meade, Hugh A. (D-MD) Jan. 16–Dec. 4, 1947 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949

Merrill, D. Bailey (R-IN) Apr. 29, 1954–Jan. 3, 1955 

(83rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

Mica, John L. (R-FL) Apr. 30, 1997–Jan. 3, 2007 

(105th–109th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1993–

Millender-McDonald, Juanita (D-CA) Feb. 5, 2003–April 22, 2007 

(108th–110th Congresses) Mar. 26, 1996–April 22, 2007

Miller, Candice (R-MI) Jan. 26, 2005–Jan. 3, 2007 

(109th Congress) Jan. 3, 2003–

Minish, Joseph G. (D-NJ) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1985 

(94th–98th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1963–Jan. 3, 1985

Mollohan, Robert H. (D-WV) Mar. 1, 1971–Jan. 3, 1983 

(92nd–97th Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1957, 

Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 3, 1983
APPENDIX B. TABLES 475

Name Committee Service House Service

Moore, W. Henson (R-LA) Jan. 28, 1975–Jan. 3, 1977 

(94th Congress) Jan. 7, 1975–Jan. 3, 1987

Morano, Albert P. (R-CT) Jan. 15, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959 

(82nd–85th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959

Morris, Toby (D-OK) Jan. 16, 1947–June 4, 1948 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1957–Jan. 3, 1961

Moss, John E. Jr. (D-CA) Jan. 19, 1953–Jan. 13, 1955 

(83rd–84th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Dec. 31, 1978

Neal, William E. (R-WV) Apr. 29, 1954–Jan. 3, 1955 

(83rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1957–Jan. 3, 1959

Nedzi, Lucien N. (D-MI)

Jan. 18, 1962–Jan. 3, 1963 

(87th Congress) 

July 25, 1963–Jan. 3, 1981 

(88th–96th Congresses)

Nov. 7, 1961–Jan. 3, 1981

Ney, Robert. W. (R-OH) Jan. 5, 1995– Nov. 3, 2006 

(104th–109th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1995– Nov. 3, 2006

Norton, Mary T. (D-NJ) Jan. 16, 1947–Jan. 3, 1951 

(80th–81st Congresses) Mar. 4, 1925–Jan. 3, 1951

Nugent, Richard (R-FL) Jan. 5, 2011–present

(112th Congress) Jan. 3, 2011–

Oakar, Mary Rose (D-OH) Jan. 6, 1983–Jan. 3, 1993 

(98th–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 3, 1993

O’Neill, Harry P. (D-PA) Jan. 12, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953

Panetta, Leon E. (D-CA)

Jan. 19, 1977–Jan. 3, 1979 

(95th Congress) 

Jan. 30, 1985–Jan. 3, 1993 

(99th–102nd Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 22, 1993

Passman, Otto E. (D-LA) Jan. 16, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1977

Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) Jan. 11, 1995–Jan. 3, 1997 

(104th Congress) Sept. 24, 1991–

Pattison, Edward W. (D-NY) Sept. 15, 1976–Jan. 3, 1979 

(94th–95th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1975–Jan. 3, 1979

Paul, Ronald E. (R-TX) Apr. 14, 1976–Jan. 3, 1977 

(94th Congress)

Apr. 3, 1976–Jan. 3, 1977, 

Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1985, 

Jan. 3. 1997–

Perkins, Carl D. (D-KY) Jan. 17, 1963–Jan. 3, 1967 

(88th–89th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1949–Aug. 3, 1984
476 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Pettis, Jerry L. (R-CA) Feb. 7, 1969–Apr. 30, 1970 

(91st Congress) Jan. 3, 1967–Feb. 14, 1975

Peyser, Peter A. (D-NY) Jan. 24, 1979–Jan. 3, 1981

(96th Congress) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1983

Pickett, Tom (D-TX) Jan.16–July 23, 1947 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1945–June 30, 1952

Pilcher, John L. (D-GA) Feb. 12, 1953–March 30, 1953 

(83rd Congress) Feb. 4, 1953–Jan. 3, 1965

Podell, Bertram L. (D-NY) Jan. 29, 1969–Jan. 3, 1975 

(91st–93rd Congresses) Feb. 20, 1968–Jan. 3, 1975

Quie, Albert H. (R-MN) Jan. 26, 1967–Feb. 7, 1969 

(90th–91st Congresses) Feb. 18, 1958–Jan. 3, 1979

Radwan, Edmund P. (R-NY) Jan. 15, 1951–Feb. 20, 1952 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1959

Ratchford, William R. (D-CT) Jan. 24, 1979–Jan. 3, 1983 

(96th–97th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1985

Ray, John H. (R-NY) Jan. 16, 1957–Feb. 25, 1959 

(85th–86th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1963

Regan, Kenneth M. (D-TX) Dec. 4, 1947–Jan. 3, 1955 

(80th–83rd Congresses) Aug. 23, 1947–Jan. 3, 1955

Reynolds, Th omas M. (R-NY) Jan. 31, 2001–Jan. 3, 2007 

(107th–109th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1999–Jan. 3, 2009

Rhodes, George M. (D-PA) Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 21, 1964 

(84th–88th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1969

Riehlman, R. Walter (R-NY) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1965

Roberts, Pat (R-KS) July 20, 1983–Jan. 3, 1997 

(98th–104th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1981–Jan. 2, 1997

Rokita, Todd (R-IN) Jan. 4, 2011–present

(112th Congress) Jan. 3, 2011–

Rose, Charles G. III (D-NC) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1995 

(94th–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1973–Jan. 3, 1997

Ross, Robert Tripp (R-NY) March 5, 1952–Jan. 3, 1953 

(82nd Congress)

Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949, 

Feb. 19, 1952–Jan. 3, 1953

Russo, Martin A. (D-IL) Jan. 3, 1991–Jan. 3, 1993 

(102nd Congress) Jan. 23, 1975–Jan. 3, 1993

Schenck, Paul F. (R-OH) Feb. 4, 1952–Jan. 3, 1965 

(82nd–88th Congresses) Nov. 6, 1951–Jan. 3, 1965
APPENDIX B. TABLES 477

Name Committee Service House Service

Scherer, Gordon H. (R-OH) Jan. 14, 1953–Jan. 16, 1953 

(83rd Congress) Jan. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1963

Schmitz, John G. (R-CA) July 23, 1970–Feb. 4, 1971 

(91st–92nd Congresses) June 30, 1970–Jan. 3, 1973

Schock, Aaron (R-IL) Jan. 5, 2011–present

(112th Congress) Jan. 3, 2003–

Schwengel, Frederick D. (R-IA) Jan. 26, 1967–Jan. 3, 1973 

(90th–92nd Congresses)

Jan. 3, 1955–Jan. 3, 1965, 

Jan. 3, 1967–Jan. 3, 1973

Simpson, Edna Oakes (R-IL) Jan. 19, 1969–Jan. 3, 1961 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Jan. 3, 1961

Sittler, Edward L. Jr. (R-PA) Jan. 15, 1951–Oct. 4, 1951 

(82nd Congress) Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1953

Skubitz, Joe (R-KS) Jan. 24, 1963–Jan. 3, 1965 

(88th Congress) Jan. 3, 1963–Dec. 31, 1978

Slack, John M. Jr. (D-WV) Jan. 7, 1959–Jan. 3, 1961 

(86th Congress) Jan. 3, 1959–Mar. 17, 1980

Smathers, George A. (D-FL) Jan. 16, 1947–Jan. 3, 1951 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 3, 1951

Smith, Frank E. (D-MS) Jan. 13, 1955–Nov. 14, 1962 

(84th–87th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1951–Nov. 14, 1962

Stanley, Th omas B. (D-VA) Jan. 16, 1947–Feb. 3, 1953 

(80th–83rd Congresses) Nov. 5, 1946–Jan. 3, 1953

Stockman, David A. (R-MI) Jan. 19, 1977–Jan. 3, 1981 

(95th–96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1977–Jan. 27, 1981

Sundstrom, Frank L. (R-NJ) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1943–Jan. 3, 1949

Swift, Allan B. (D-WA) March 19, 1980–Jan. 3, 1995 

(96th–103rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979–Jan. 3, 1995

Th omas, William M. (Bill) (R-CA) Jan. 28, 1981–Jan. 3, 2001 

(97th–106th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1979– Jan. 3, 2007

Th ompson, Frank Jr. (D-NJ) Jan. 13, 1955–Jan. 3, 1981 

(84th–96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1955–Dec. 29, 1980

Trimble, James W. (D-AR) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 13, 1955 

(81st–84th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1945–Jan. 3, 1967

Van Deerlin, Lionel (D-CA) July 29, 1974–Jan. 3, 1981 

(93rd–96th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1963–Jan. 3, 1981
478 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Name Committee Service House Service

Van Pelt, William K. (R-WI)

Jan. 15, 1951–Feb. 20, 1952 

(82nd Congress) 

Jan. 14, 1953–Jan. 21, 1954 

(83rd Congress)

Jan. 3, 1951–Jan. 3, 1965

Veysey, Victor V. (R-CA) Feb. 4, 1971–Jan. 24, 1973 

(92nd–93rd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1971–Jan. 3, 1975

Vucanovich, Barbara (R-NV) June 8, 1983–Jan. 3, 1991 

(98th–101st Congresses) Jan. 3, 1983–Jan. 3, 1997

Vursell, Charles W. (R-IL) Jan. 14, 1947–Jan. 3, 1949 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1943–Jan. 3, 1959

Waggonner, Joe D. Jr. (D-LA) Jan. 18, 1962–Feb. 3, 1971 

(87th–92nd Congresses) Dec. 19, 1961–Jan. 3, 1979

Walsh, James T. (R-NY) Mar. 2, 1989–Jan. 3, 1993 

(101st–102nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1989–Jan. 3, 2009

Ware, John H. III (R-PA) Feb. 4, 1971–Jan. 3, 1975 

(92nd–93rd Congresses) Nov. 3, 1970–Jan. 3, 1975

Wheeler, William M. (D-GA) Jan. 18, 1949–Jan. 3, 1953 

(81st–82nd Congresses) Jan. 3, 1947– Jan. 3, 1975

Widnall, William B. (R-NJ) Mar. 1, 1950–Jan. 3, 1951 

(81st Congress) Feb. 6, 1950–Dec. 31, 1974

Wiggins, Charles E. (R-CA) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1979 

(93rd–95th Congresses) Jan. 3, 1967–Jan. 3, 1979

Williams, John Bell (D-MS) Jan. 16, 1947–June 4, 1948 

(80th Congress) Jan. 3, 1947–Jan. 16, 1968

Wilson, Earl (R-IN) Jan. 18, 1949–March 30, 1950 

(81st Congress) Jan. 3, 1961–Jan. 3, 1965

Wold, John S. (R-WY) Mar. 5, 1970–Jan. 3, 1971 

(91st Congress) Jan. 3, 1969–Jan. 3, 1971

Woodhouse, Chase Going (D-CT) Mar. 31, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951 

(81st Congress)

Jan. 3, 1945–Jan. 3, 1947, 

Jan. 3, 1949–Jan. 3, 1951
APPENDIX B. TABLES 479

Table III

Chronological listing of Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee on House Administration

Eightieth Congress 1947–1948

Chairman Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Ranking Member Mary T. Norton (D-NJ)

Eighty-First Congress 1949–1950

Chairman Mary T. Norton (D-NJ)

Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Eighty-Second Congress 1951–1952

Chairman Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA)

Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Eighty-Th ird Congress 1953–1954

Chairman Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Ranking Member Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Jan. 14, 1953–Feb. 3, 1953

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Feb. 3, 1953–Jan. 3, 1955

Eighty-Forth Congress 1955–1956

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Eighty-Fifth Congress 1957–1958

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Eighty-Sixth Congress 1959–1960

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Eighty-Seventh Congress 1961–1962

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)
480 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Eighty-Eighth Congress 1963–1964

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Eighty-Ninth Congress 1965–1966

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Ninetieth Congress 1967–1968

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Jan. 18, 1967–July 30, 1968

Samuel. N. Friedel (D-MD) July 30, 1968–Jan. 3, 1969

Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA) Jan. 3, 1969–Feb. 1, 1970

Ninety-First Congress 1969–1970

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD)

Ranking Member Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA) Jan. 3, 1969–Feb. 1, 1970

Samuel L. Devine (R-OH) Feb. 1, 1970–Jan. 3, 1971

Ninety-Second Congress 1971–1972

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Ranking Member Samuel L . Devine (R-OH)

Ninety-Th ird Congress 1973–1974

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Ranking Member Samuel L. Devine (R-OH) Jan. 6, 1973–Jan. 24, 1973

William L. Dickinson (R-AL) Jan. 24, 1973–Jan. 3, 1975

Ninety-Forth Congress 1975–1976

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Jan. 23, 1975–June 21, 1976

Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ) June 23, 1976–Jan. 3, 1977

Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Ninety-Fifth Congress 1977–1978

Chairman Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ)

Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 481

Ninety-Sixth Congress 1979–1980

Chairman Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ)

[Acting Chair on June 18, 1980, during interruption of 

service by Th ompson] Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) 

Ranking Member William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Ninety-Seventh Congress 1981–1982

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Ninety-Eighth Congress 1983–1984

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Jan. 6, 1983–Sept. 6, 1984

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Sept. 6, 1984–Jan. 3, 1985

Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Ninety-Ninth Congress 1985–1986

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

One Hundredth Congress 1987–1988

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Ranking Member William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

One Hundred-First Congress 1989–1990

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Ranking Member Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA) Jan. 3, 1989–April 10, 1989

William M. Th omas (R-CA) April 10, 1989–Jan. 3, 1991

One Hundred-Second Congress 1991–1992

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Ranking Member William M. Th omas (R-CA)
482 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

One Hundred-Th ird Congress 1993–1994

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Ranking Member William M. Th omas (R-CA)

One Hundred-Fourth Congress 1995–1996

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Ranking Member Vic Fazio (D-CA)

One Hundred-Fifth Congress 1997–1998

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Ranking Member Sam Gejdenson (D-CT)

One Hundred-Sixth Congress 1999–2000

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Ranking Member Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

One Hundred-Seventh Congress 2001–2002

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

Ranking Member Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

One Hundred-Eighth Congress 2003–2004

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

Ranking Member John B. Larson (D-CT)

One Hundred-Ninth Congress 2005–2006

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Jan. 5, 2005–Nov. 3, 2006

[Acting Chair during interruption

of service by Ney]

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Jan. 18, 2006–Nov. 3, 2006

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Nov. 4, 2006–Jan. 3, 2007

Ranking Member Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

One Hundred-Tenth Congress 2007–2008

Chairman Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) 

Jan. 4, 2007–April 22, 2007

Robert A. Brady (D-PA) May 24, 2007–present

Ranking Member Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 483

One Hundred-Eleventh Congress 2009–2010

Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Ranking Member Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA)

One Hundred-Twelfth Congress 2011–2012

Chairman Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA)

Ranking Member Robert A. Brady (D-PA)
484 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Table IV

Chronological Listing of Subcommittees of the Committee on House Administration and Members of those 

Subcommittees (1947–2011*) [and Task Forces, Special Subcommittees, Policy Groups, etc.] including House 

Members of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers, and 

the Joint Committee on the Library

*Th e Committee had no subcommittees from the 104th to 109th Congresses (1995–2006)

80th Congress (1947–1948)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank L. Sundstrom (R-NJ) Tom Pickett (D-TX)

James Gallagher (R-PA) Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA)

Gregory McMahon (R-NY)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Ralph M. Gamble (R-NY) Tom Pickett (D-TX)

Charles W. Vursell (R-IL) Burr P. Harrison (D-VA)

Gerald W. Landis (R-IN) George A. Smathers (D-FL)

William C. Cole (R-MO)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) Otto E. Passman (D-LA)

R. Walter Riehlman (R-NY) John Bell Williams (D-MS)

J. Caleb Boggs (R-DE) Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

Howard A. Coffi n (R-MI)

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills, Library, Disposition of Executive Papers, and Memorials

Chairman Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Mary T. Norton (D-NJ)

Gerald W. Landis (R-IN) Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) Toby Morris (D-OK)

James Gallagher (R-PA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) Tom Pickett (D-TX)*

Ralph M. Gamble (R-NY) Omar Burleson (D-TX)**

Note: *1st session; **2nd session
APPENDIX B. TABLES 485

Joint Committee on the Library

Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) Mary T. Norton (D-NJ)

Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Hugh A. Meade (D-MD)*

Gerald W. Landis (R-IN) Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX)**

Note: *1st session; **2nd session

81st Congress (1949–1950)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC) William B. Widnall (R-NJ)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

William M. Wheeler (D-GA)

Edna F. Kelly (D-NY)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Burr P. Harrison (D-VA) Benjamin F. James (R-PA)

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Anthony Cavalcante (D-PA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Chase Going Woodhouse (D-CT)

Vito Marcantonio (American Labor Party-NY)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Charles B. Deane (D-NC) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

James W. Trimble (D-AR) Benjamin F. James (R-PA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO)

George H. Christopher (D-MO)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills, Library, Disposition of Executive Papers, and Memorials

Chairman Ken Regan (D-TX) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) William B. Widnall (R-NY)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

James W. Trimble (D-AR)

George A. Smathers (D-FL)
486 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Special Committee on Administration and Personnel

Chairman Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Chase Going Woodhouse (D-CT)

Joint Committee on Printing

Mary T. Norton (D-NJ) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

Joint Committee on the Library

Mary T. Norton (D-NJ) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

82nd Congress (1951–1952)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Charles B. Deane (D-NC) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

William M. Wheeler (D-GA) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Ken Regan (D-TX)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Carl Albert (D-OK) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Reva Z. B. Bosone (D-UT) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

Charles R. Howell (D-NJ) Robert Tripp Ross (R-NY)

Wayne N. Aspinall (D-CO)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman James W. Trimble (D-AR) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Harry P. O’Neill (D-PA) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

Wayne N. Aspinall (D-CO) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Victor L. Anfuso (D-NY)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 487

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills, Library, Disposition of Executive Papers, and Memorials

Chairman Ken Regan (D-TX) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

James W. Trimble (D-AR) Robert Tripp Ross (R-NY)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

Victor L. Anfuso (D-NY)

Joint Committee on Printing

Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

James W. Trimble (D-AR)

Joint Committee on the Library

Th omas B. Stanley (D-VA) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Kenneth M. Regan (D-TX) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

Carl Albert (D-OK)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD) Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL)

83rd Congress (1953–1954)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Charles B. Deane (D-NC)

John B. Bennett (R-MI) Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA) Ken Regan (D-TX)

Oliver P. Bolton (R-OH) Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

William E. Neal (R-WV)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Albert P. Morano (R-CT) Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA) Courtney W. Campbell (D-FL)

William C. Cole (R-MO) Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC)

D. Bailey Merrill (R-IN)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Paul F. Schenck (R-OH) James W. Trimble (D-AR)

Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA) Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) John E. Moss (D-CA)

Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)
488 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills, Library, Disposition of Executive Papers, and Memorials

Chairman Robert D. Harrison (R-NE) Ken Regan (D-TX)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA) Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

William C. Cole (R-MO) Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD)

Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA) Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on Printing

Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) James W. Trimble (D-AR)

Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA) Ken Regan (D-TX)

Robert D. Harrison (R-NE) Omar T. Burleson (D-TX)

Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Cecil W. (Runt) Bishop (R-IL) Edward A. Garmatz (D-MD)

84th Congress (1955–1956)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Oliver P. Bolton (R-OH)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Hugh Q. Alexander (D-NC)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

John Dowdy (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Subcommittee on Printing*

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

George S. Long (D-LA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Note: * also served as the Special Subcommittee to Study Federal Printing and Paperwork
APPENDIX B. TABLES 489

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Special Subcommittee on Offi ce Equipment

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Hugh Q. Alexander (D-NC) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

John Dowdy (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Special Subcommittee on the Restaurant

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

George S. Long (D-LA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

George S. Long (D-LA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

85th Congress (1957–1958)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) John H. Ray (R-NY)

Carl A. Elliott (D-AL)
490 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

George S. Long (D-LA)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

George S. Long (D-LA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) Patrick J. Hillings (R-CA)

Edith Green (D-OR)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

Chairman George S. Long (D-LA) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Carl A. Elliott (D-AL)

Special Subcommittee to Study Federal Printing and Paperwork

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

George S. Long (D-LA) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA)

Special Subcommittee to Study Restrictions on Political Activity

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Albert P. Morano (R-CT)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) Joseph L. Carrigg (R-PA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

George S. Long (D-LA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 491

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Karl M. Le Compte (R-IA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert D. Harrison (R-NE)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Edith Green (D-OR) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

86th Congress (1959–1960)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) William S. Mailliard (R-CA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Carl A. Elliott (D-AL)

John M. Slack (D-WV)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Bob Casey (D-TX)

Steven V. Carter (D-IA)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) William S. Mailliard (R-CA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Edna Simpson (R-IL)

Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ)
492 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Edna Simpson (R-IL)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Edith Green (D-OR) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

Chairman Carl A. Elliott (D-AL) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC)

George S. Long (D-LA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

87th Congress (1961–1962)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Edgar W. Hiestand (R-CA)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

Robert N. Giaimo (D-CT)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 493

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS) John B. Anderson (R-IL)

John J. McFall (D-CA)

Hugh L. Carey (D-NY)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Edgar W. Hiestand (R-CA)

Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ) Walter L. McVey (R-KS)

Edith Green (D-OR)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

Subcommittee on Enrolled Bills and Library

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

John Lesinski, Jr. (D-MI) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

John J. McFall (D-CA) Walter L. McVey (R-KS)

Robert N. Giamo (D-CT)

Hugh L. Carey (D-NY)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Edith Green (D-OR) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

 Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Travel ( renamed Audit)

Chairman Frank E. Smith (D-MS) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)
494 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank E. Smith (D-MS)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

88th Congress (1963–1964)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

John J. McFall (D-CA) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson Jr. (D-NJ) Joe Skubitz (R-KS)

Robert A. Everett (D-TN)

John H. Dent (D-PA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 495

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

John J. McFall (D-CA) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Hugh L. Carey (D-NY)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) John B. Bennett (R-MI)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Audits

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

George M. Rhodes (D-PA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Paul F. Schenck (R-OH)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) John H. Kyl (R-IA)
496 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

89th Congress (1965–1966)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

John W. Davis (D-GA)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

John H. Dent (D-PA) John N. Erlenborn (R-IL)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Carl D. Perkins (D-KY) John N. Erlenborn (R-IL)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Willard S. Curtin (R-PA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 497

Special Subcommittee on Audits

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

90th Congress (1967–1968)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Robert T. Ashmore (D-SC) Charles E. Goodell (R-NY)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) Albert H. Quie (R-MN)

John Brademas (D-IN)
498 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA) William O. Cowger (R-KY)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Charles E. Chamberlain (R-MI)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

John W. Davis (D-GA)

Special Subcommittee on Audits

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts*

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL)

*renamed Permanent Subcommittee on Ethics and Contracts

Special Subcommittee on Police

Chairman John W. Davis (D-GA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Sam M. Gibbons (D-FL) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Omar T. Burleson (D-TX) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

Paul C. Jones (D-MO) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 499

91st Congress (1969–1970)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL) 

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) John H. Kyl (R-IA)

Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Robert C. McEwen (R-NY)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA) James Harvey (R-MI)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

John Brademas (D-IN) Jerry L. Pettis (R-CA)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) Orval Hansen (R-ID)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Robert C. McEwen (R-NY)

John W. Davis (D-GA) James Harvey (R-MI)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Police

Chairman Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) James Harvey (R-MI)
500 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Joint Committee on Printing

Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Samuel N. Friedel (D-MD) Robert J. Corbett (R-PA)*

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) James Harvey (R-MI)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY)* Fred Schwengel (R-IA)**

John Brademas (D-IN)** *1st session **2nd session

Joint Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Jerry L. Pettis (R-CA)

92nd Congress (1971–1972)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) William L. Dickinson (R-AL) 

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA) James Harvey (R-MI)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) John Ware (R-IL)

John H. Dent (D-PA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA) James Harvey (R-MI)

John Brademas (D-IN) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 501

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman John Brademas (D-IN) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) Orval Hansen (R-ID)

Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY) Victor V. Veysey (D-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Watkins M. Abbitt (D-VA)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman John H. Dent (D-PA) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) James Harvey (R-MI)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John Brademas (D-IN) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-GA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Special Subcommittee on Police

Chairman Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) John Ware (R-IL)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Victor V. Veysey (R-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Special Subcommittee on Non-essential Employees

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC)

Joint Committee on Printing

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Fred Schwengel (R-IA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) James Harvey (R-MI)

John Brademas (D-IN)** **2nd session
502 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

93rd Congress (1973–1974)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) James F. Hastings (R-NY)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman John H. Dent (D-PA) James Harvey (R-MI)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Ed Jones (D-TN) John Ware (R-IL)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) James Harvey (R-MI)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

John Brademas (D-IN) Harold V. Froehlich (R-WI)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman John Brademas (D-IN) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) Orval Hansen (R-ID)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Edward I. Koch (D-NY)

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA)

Edward I. Koch (D-NY)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 503

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James Harvey (R-MI)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Bertram L. Podell (D-NY) James F. Hastings (R-NY)

John Brademas (D-IN) Harold V. Froehlich (R-WI)

Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Special Subcommittee on Police

Chairman Kenneth J. Gray (D-IL) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) John Ware (R-IL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA)

Special Subcommittee on Personnel

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Philip M. Crane (R-IL)

Tom S. Gettys (D-SC)

Joint Committee on Printing

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) Orval Hansen (R-ID)

John Brademas (D-IN)
504 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

94th Congress (1975–1976)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Marjorie S. Holt (R-MD)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman John H. Dent (D-PA) M. Caldwell Butler (R-VA)*

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)**

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)

Corinne C. (Lindy) Boggs (D-LA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Note: *1st session, **2nd session

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) M. Caldwell Butler (R-VA)

John Brademas (D-IN) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Corinne C. (Lindy) Boggs (D-LA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman John Brademas (D-IN) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 505

Special Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Special Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Offi ce Equipment

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Marjorie S. Holt (R-MD)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)

John Brademas (D-IN)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Special Subcommittee on Paper Conservation

Chairman Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ)

Special Subcommittee on Parking

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Special Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Computers

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Marjorie Holt (R-MD)

John L. Burton (D-CA) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)

Corinne C. (Lindy) Boggs (D-LA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Restaurant 

Chairman Dawson Mathis (D-GA) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)
506 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Oversight

Chairman Mendel J. Davis (D-SC) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

John H. Dent (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Wayne L. Hays (D-OH) W. Henson Moore (R-LA)**

John Brademas (D-IN) **2nd session

95th Congress (1977–1978)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman John H. Dent (D-PA) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

 Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Edward C. Pattison (D-NY) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

John Brademas (D-IN)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA)

Joseph S. Ammerman (D-PA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 507

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA)

Joseph S. Ammerman (D-PA)

 Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA) Charles E. Wiggins (R-CA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

 Subcommittee on Services

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

John H. Dent (D-PA)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) J. Herbert Burke (R-FL)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Joseph S. Ammerman (D-PA)

Edward C. Pattison (D-NY)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA)

Policy Group on Information and Computers

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

Edward C. Pattison (D-NY)
508 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Joint Committee on Printing

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

John Brademas (D-IN)

96th Congress (1979–1980)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman John Brademas (D-IN) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. (R-SC)

Peter A. Peyser (D-NY)

William Ratchford (D-CT)

Victor H. Fazio (D-CA)

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

John Brademas (D-IN) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

William Ratchford (D-CT) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Victor H. Fazio (D-CA)

Peter A. Peyser (D-NY)

Subcommittee on Printing

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 509

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. (R-SC)

Mendel J. Davis (D-SC)

Peter A. Peyser (D-NY)

Subcommittee on Contracts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) James C. Cleveland (R-NH)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. (R-SC)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Subcommittee on Services

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

 Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

 Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) David A. Stockman (R-MI)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Policy Group on Information and Computers

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) David A. Stockman (R-MI)

Lionel Van Deerlin (D-CA) Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Lucien N. Nedzi (D-MI) Samuel L. Devine (R-OH)

Frank Th ompson, Jr. (D-NJ) David A. Stockman (R-CA)

John Brademas (D-IN)
510 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

97th Congress (1981–1982)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) Gary A. Lee (R-NY)

William Ratchford (D-CT) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Contracts and Printing

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ)

Subcommittee on Services

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) James K. Coyne (R-PA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) Gary A. Lee (R-NY)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Gary Lee (R-NY)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) James K. Coyne (R-PA)

William Ratchford (D-CT)

Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations

Chairman William Ratchford (D-CT) Gary Lee (R-NY)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA)

Policy Group on Information and Computers

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) James K. Coyne (R-PA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 511

Policy Group on New Member Orientation

Chairman William Ratchford (D-CT) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Task Force on Attorneys Fees

Chairman William Ratchford (D-CT) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA)

Task Force on Committee Organization

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Task Force on Elections

Chairman Allan B. Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

John L. Burton (D-CA) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

William Ratchford (D-CT) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Task Force on Offi ce Supply Service

Chairman Robert H. Mollohan (D-WV) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Joint Committee on Printing

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) James K. Coyne (R-PA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)
512 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

98th Congress (1983–1984)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA) Lynn Martin (R-IL)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

Tony Coelho (D-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Contracts and Printing

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Ed Jones (D-TN) Lynn Martin (R-IL)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Services

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Rod Chandler (R-WA)

Al Swift (D-WA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Joseph G. Minish (D-NJ) Rod Chandler (R-WA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC)

Tony Coehlo (D-CA)

Task Force on Contested Election (Archer v. Packard)

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 513

Task Force on Contested Election (Hendon v. Clarke)

Chairman Jim Bates (D-CA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Task Force on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Tony Coehlo (D-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Task Force on Legislative Service Organizations

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Al Swift (D-WA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) 

Task Force on New Member Orientation

Chairman William J. Coyne (D-PA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA)

Task Force on Telephone Confi guration

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Lynn M. Martin (R-IL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Rodney Chandler (R-WA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Rodney Chandler (R-WA)

William J. Coyne (D-PA)
514 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

99th Congress (1985–1986)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Tony Coelho (D-CA)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing

Chairman Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Subcommittee on Services

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Th omas S. Foley (D-WA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Tony Coelho (D-CA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 515

Task Force on Food Service

Chairman Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Task Force on the Hansen V. Stallings Contested Election (Idaho)

Chairman Jim Bates (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Al Swift (D-WA)

Task Force on the Indiana Eighth Congressional District

Chairman Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Task Force on Libraries and Memorials

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Jim Bates (D-CA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Task Force on New Member Orientation

Chairman Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Al Swift (D-WA)

Task Force on the Won Pat V. Blaz Contested Election (Guam)

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Joint Committee on Printing

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Allan B. Swift (D-WA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)
516 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

100th Congress (1987–1988)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Tony Coelho (D-CA) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Tony Coelho (D-CA)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Al Swift (D-WA) William E. Frenzel (R-MN)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Ed Jones (D-TN) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing

Chairman Ed Jones (D-TN) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Jim Bates (D-CA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 517

Task Force on Legislative Service Organizations

Chairman Jim Bates (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Robert E. Badham (R-CA)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Leon E. Panneta (D-CA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Ed Jones (D-TN)

101st Congress (1989–1990)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Al Swift (D-WA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

Tony Coelho (D-CA) John Hiler (R-IN)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-CT)

Ronnie G. Flippo (D-TX)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) John Hiler (R-IN)

Tony Coelho (D-CA) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Jim Bates (D-CA)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)

Martin Frost (D-TX)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

Ronnie G. Flippo (D-AL) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Martin Frost (D-TX)
518 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems*

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Martin Frost (D-TX) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-CT)

*Name changed in the Second Session to Subcommittee on Communications, Computers and Offi ce Systems

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA)

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing

Chairman Jim Bates (D-CA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Ronnie G. Flippo (D-AL) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Martin Frost (D-TX)

Task Force on FLSA Implementation

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) John Hiler (R-IN)

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY)

Task Force on the Congressional Record

Chairman Th omas J. Manton (D-NY) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Martin Frost (D-TX)

Task Force on New Member Orientation

Chairman Martin Frost (D-TX) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-CT)

Task Force on Legislative Service Organizations

Chairman Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Martin Frost (D-TX)

Joint Committee on Printing

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 519

102nd Congress (1991–1992)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-NV)

Frank Annunzio (D-IL) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Al Swift (D-WA) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) John Hiler (R-IN)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY)

Martin A. Russo (D-IL)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Martin Frost (D-TX) Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)

William H. Gray III (D-PA)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman William H. Gray III (D-PA) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-PA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Martin Frost (D-TX)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Martin Frost (D-TX) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Martin A. Russo (D-IL)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) William L. Dickinson (R-AL)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-CT) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

Martin A. Russo (D-IL)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)
520 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing

Chairman Frank Annunzio (D-IL) M. H. (Mickey) Edwards (R-OK)

Joseph M. Gaydos (D-PA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

William H. Gray III (D-PA)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform

Chairman Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Leon E. Panetta (D-CA) James T. Walsh (R-NY)

Martin Frost (D-TX) M. H. (Mickey) Edwards (R-OK)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

William H. Gray III (D-PA)

Task Force for the Investigation of the House Post Offi ce

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Joint Committee on the Library

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Joseph P. Kolter (D-PA) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Th omas J. Manton (D-NY)

103rd Congress (1993–1994)

Subcommittee on Accounts

Chairman Martin Frost (D-TX) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Al Swift (D-WA) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) John A. Boehner (R-OH)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) Jennifer Dunn (R-WA)

Dale Kildee (D-MI)

Barbara B. Kennelly (D-CT)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 521

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Al Swift (D-WA) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

Martin Frost (D-TX) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) Jennifer Dunn (R-WA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Subcommittee on Library and Memorials

Chairman William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Martin Frost (D-TX) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Butler Derrick (D-SC)

Barbara B. Kennelly (D-CT)

Subcommittee on Offi ce Systems

Chairman Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) John A. Boehner (R-OH)

Martin Frost (D-TX) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Barbara B. Kennelly (D-CT)

Subcommittee on Personnel and Police

Chairman Th omas J. Manton (D-NY) Jennifer Dunn (R-WA)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO) Robert L. Livingston (R-LA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Butler Derrick (D-SC)

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) William M. Th omas (R-CA)

William L. Clay, Sr. (D-MO) Bill Barrett (R-NE)

Joint Committee on Printing

Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT) Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA)

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-WI)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Charles G. Rose III (D-NC) Vacant

Vacant Vacant

Vacant
522 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

104th Congress (1995–1996)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Pat Roberts (R-KS) William J. Jeff erson (D-LA)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

William M. Th omas (R-CA) Vic Fazio (D-CA)

Pat Roberts (R-KS) Ed Pastor (D-AZ)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

105th Congress (1997–1998)

Joint Committee on Printing

William M. Th omas (R-CA) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Kay Granger (R-TX)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA) Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Samuel Gejdenson (D-CT)

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

106th Congress (1999–2000)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman William M. Th omas (R-CA) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John A. Boehner (R-OH) Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

Joint Committee on the Library

William M. Th omas (R-CA) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John A. Boehner (R-OH) Jim Davis (D-FL)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 523

107th Congress (2001–2002)

Joint Committee on Printing

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA) Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

John Linder (R-GA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Jim Davis (D-FL)

Charles Taylor (R-NC) 

108th Congress (2003–2004)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH) John B. Larson (D-CT)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

John Linder (R-GA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) John B. Larson (D-CT)

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

Jack Kingston (D-GA)

109th Congress (2005–2006)

Joint Committee on Printing

Robert W. Ney (R-OH) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

John T. Doolittle (R-CA) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Th omas M. Reynolds (R-NY)

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

[Jan. 5, 2005–Jan. 18, 2006] Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)

Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

[Nov. 4, 2006–Jan. 3, 2007]

[Acting Chair Jan. 18, 2006 – Nov. 3, 2006]

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Candice Miller (R-MI)
524 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2012

110th Congress (2007–2008)

Subcommittee on Capitol Security

Chairman Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA)

Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX) Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)

Artur Davis (D-AL)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA) Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)

Joint Committee on the Library

Robert A. Brady (D-PA) Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)

111th Congress (2009–2010)

Subcommittee on Capitol Security

Chairman Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA)

Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Vice Chairman Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX) Gregg Harper (R-MS)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)

Artur Davis (D-AL)

Joint Committee on Printing

Vice Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA) Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA)

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Susan A. Davis (D-CA)
APPENDIX B. TABLES 525

Joint Committee on the Library

Chairman Robert A. Brady (D-PA) Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA)

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Gregg Harper (R-MS)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)

112th Congress (2011–2012)

Subcommittee on Elections

Chairman Gregg Harper (R-MS) Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)

Aaron Schock (R-IL) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Richard Nugent (R-IL)

Todd Rokita (R-IN)

Subcommittee on Oversight

Chairman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Aaron Schock (R-IL) Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)

Richard Nugent (R-IL)

Todd Rokita (R-IN)

Joint Committee on Printing

Chairman Gregg Harper (R-MS) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA) Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)

Aaron Schock (R-IL)

Joint Committee on the Library

Vice Chairman Gregg Harper (R-MS) Robert A. Brady (D-PA)

Daniel E. Lundgren (R-CA) Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)
526 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Table V. Bills Reported by the Committee that Were Enacted into Law, 1947–2012

80th Congress (January 3, 1947–December 31, 1948)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report number, or 

other action making 

the measure available 

for consideration

Title

P.L. 95 61 Stat. 133-134

June 17, 1947

H. Rept. 577 To prepare a revised edition of the Annotated Constitution of the United States of America as published in 

1938 as Senate Document 323 of the Seventy-fourth 

Congress. 

P.L. 111 61 Stat. 178

June 25, 1947

H. Rept. 381 Authorizing the erection on public grounds in the 

city of Washington, District of Columbia of a memorial to the dead of the First Infantry Division, United 

States Forces, World War II. 

P.L. 157 61 Stat. 242

July 1, 1947

H. Rept. 638 Authorizing the erection in the District of Columbia 

of a memorial to the Marine Corps dead of all wars.

P.L. 194 61 Stat. 327-328

July 16, 1947

H. Rept. 383 Authorizing the erection in the District of Columbia 

of a memorial to Andrew W. Mellon. 

P.L. 203 61 Stat. 396-397

July 18, 1947

H. Rept. 874 To provide for the appropriate commemoration of the 

one hundred and fi ftieth anniversary of the establishment of the seat of the Federal Government in the 

District of Columbia.

P.L. 327 61 Stat. 724-725

Aug. 4, 1947

H. Rept. 1090 To establish a commission to formulate plans for the 

erection in Grant Park , Chicago, of a Marine Corps 

memorial. 

P.L. 359 61 Stat. 768-769

Aug. 4, 1947

H. Rept. 1041 Providing for the representation of the Government 

and people of the United States in the observance of 

the two-hundredth anniversary of the founding of 

the city of Reading, Pennsylvania.

P.L. 788 62 Stat. 1051-1052

June 26, 1948

 H. Rept. 2402 To provide for the acceptance on behalf of the United 

States a statute of General José Gervasio Artigas, and 

for other purposes. 

P.L. 789 62 Stat. 1052

June 26, 1948

 H. Rept. 382 Authorizing the printing and binding of Cannon’s 

Procedure in the House of Representatives and 

providing that the same shall be subject to copyright 

by the author.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 527

81st Congress (January 3, 1949–January 2, 1951)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration

Title

P.L. 44 63 Stat. 48

April 19, 1949

 H. Rept. 259 To amend the Printing Act of January 12, 1895, as 

amended with respect to the printing of extra copies 

of congressional hearings and other documents.

P.L. 78 63 Stat. 140-144

May 31, 1949

 H. Rept. 445 To authorize the National Capital Sesquicentennial 

Commission to proceed with plans for the celebration 

and commemoration of the one hundred and fi ftieth 

anniversary of the establishment of the seat of the 

Federal Government in the District of Columbia, and 

for other purposes.

P.L. 156 63 Stat. 405-406

 July 5, 1949

 H. Rept. 841 To authorize certain Government printing, binding, 

and blank-book work elsewhere than at the Government Printing Offi ce if approved by the Joint Committee on Printing.

P.L. 157 63 Stat. 406

 July 5, 1949

 H. Rept. 897 Authorizing the erection in the District of Columbia 

of a statue of Simon Bolivar.

P.L. 190 63 Stat. 482

 July 26, 1949

 H. Rept. 1052 To provide for on-the-spot audits by the General 

Accounting Offi ce of the fi scal records of the Offi ce of 

the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives.

P.L. 309 63 Stat. 699

 Aug. 28, 1949

 H. Rept. 1054 To erect a memorial to the memory of Mohandas K. 

Gandhi.

P.L. 701 64 Stat. 452

 Aug. 16, 1950

 H. Rept. 2606 To authorize the procurement of an oil portrait and a 

marble bust of the late Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone.

P.L. 703 64 Stat. 452 

Aug. 17, 1950

 H. Rept. 575 To provide for the utilization of the unfi nished 

portion of the historical frieze in the rotunda of the 

Capitol to portray (1) the Civil War, (2) the SpanishAmerican War, and (3) the birth of aviation in the 

United States.

P.L. 732 64 Stat. 475-476

 Aug. 25, 1950

 H. Rept. 2717 To amend the Hatch Act.

P.L. 741 64 Stat. 567

Aug. 30, 1950

 H. Rept. 2963 Authorizing the printing and binding of a revised edition of Cannon’s Procedure in the House of Representatives and providing that the same shall be subject to 

copyright by the author.

P.L. 862 64 Stat. 1082 

 Sept. 29, 1950

 H. Rept. 3045 To provide a more eff ective method of delivering 

applications for absentee ballots to servicemen and 

certain other persons.

P.L. 863 64 Stat. 1082-1063

 Sept. 29, 1950

 H. Rept. 3046 To amend the Act of September 16, 1942, as 

amended, so as to facilitate voting by members of the 

Armed Forces, and certain others, absent from their 

places of residence.
528 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

82nd Congress (January 3, 1951–July 7, 1952)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 18 65 Stat. 31-32 

April 16, 1951

 H. Rept. 266 To authorize the printing of the annual reports of the 

Girl Scouts of the United States as separate documents.

P.L. 42 65 Stat. 47

May 29, 1951

 H. Rept. 440 To amend the Act of June 23, 1949, with respect to 

telephone and telegraph service for Members of the 

House of Representatives.

P.L. 81 65 Stat. 123

 July 20, 1951

 H. Rept. 697 Relating to the compensation of employees of the 

House and Senate press, periodical, and radio galleries.

P.L. 125 65 Stat. 198

 Aug. 27, 1951

 H. Rept. 898 Relating to the time for publication of the Offi cial 

Register of the United States.

P.L. 206 65 Stat. 634-636

 Oct. 24, 1951

 H. Rept. 698 Relating to the policing of the buildings and grounds 

of the Smithsonian Institution and its constituent 

bureaus.

P.L. 406 66 Stat. 154

June 23, 1952

 H. Rept. 2007 To provide for the reappointment of Doctor Vannevar Bush as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

P.L. 446 66 Stat. 326

July 3, 1952

 H. Rept. 1660 To amend thee Act entitled “An Act to provide books 

for the adult blind.”

P.L. 462 66 Stat. 441

July 7, 1952

 H. Rept. 1780 To amend the Act of July 1, 1947 (61 Stat. 242)

P.L. 463 66 Stat. 441-442

July 7, 1952

 H. Rept. 2411 Authorizing the printing and binding of a revised 

edition of Cannon’s Procedure in the House of 

Representatives and providing that the same shall be 

subject to copyright of the author.

P.L. 466 66 Stat. 443

July 8, 1952

H. Rept. 2469 To amend the act of June 23, 1949, as amended with 

respect to the accumulated balances on telephone 

and telegraph accounts of Members of the House of 

Representatives.

P.L. 548 66 Stat. 662

July 15, 1952

H. Rept. 2361 Relating to the continuance on the pay rolls of 

certain employees in cases of death or resignation of 

Members of the House of Representatives, Delegates, 

and Resident Commissioners.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 529

83rd Congress (January 3, 1953–December 2, 1954)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 6 67 Stat. 5-6 March 

10, 1953

 H. Rept. 83 To amend the Act of June 23, 1949, as amended, to 

remove the monthly limitations on offi cial longdistance telephone calls and offi cial telegrams of 

Members of the House of Representatives without 

aff ecting the annual limitation on such telephone 

calls and telegrams.

P.L. 10 67 Stat. 7-8

 March 25, 1953

 H. Rept. 162 To authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to furnish certain electrical or mechanical offi ce 

equipment for the use of Members, offi cers, and committees of the House of Representatives.

P.L. 66 67 Stat. 64

 June 16, 1953

 H. Rept. 424 To amend the Act of July 1, 1947 (61 Stat. 242), as 

amended.

P.L. 142 67 Stat. 184

July 23, 1953

 H. Rept. 864 To provide for the appointment of Robert V. Fleming as citizen regent of the Board of Trustees of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 143 67 Stat. 184

July 23, 1953

 H. Rept. 866 To provide for the appointment Owen Josephus 

Roberts as member of the Board of Trustees of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 152 67 Stat. 169

July 27, 1953

 H. Rept. 865 To authorize the erection of a memorial to Sara 

Louisa Rittenhouse in Montrose Park, District of 

Columbia.

P.L. 208 67 Stat. 439

 8/7/1953

 H. Rept. 1019 Establishing in the Treasury of the United States a 

revolving fund within the contingent fund of the 

House of Representatives.

P.L. 361 68 Stat. 98-100

 May 17, 1954

 H. Rept. 1040 To provide for the construction of the Jeff erson 

National Expansion Memorial at the site of old Saint 

Louis, Missouri, in general accordance with the plan 

approved by the United States Territorial Expansion 

Memorial Commission, and for other purposes.

P.L. 394 68 Stat. 249

 June 10, 1954

 H. Rept. 1660 To extend the time for the erection of a memorial to 

the memory of Mohandas K. Gandhi.

P.L. 397 68 Stat. 250

 June 14, 1954

H. Rept. 1659 To amend the Act of July 5, 1949 (Public Law 157, 

Eighty-fi rst Congress). Simon Bolivar statute in D.C. 
530 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

84th Congress (January 5, 1955–July 27, 1956)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 15 69 Stat. 13

March 23, 1955

H. Rept. 219 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

relating to electrical or mechanical offi ce equipment 

for the use of Members, offi cers, and committees of 

the House of Representatives.

P.L. 17 69 Stat. 14

March 28, 1955

H. Rept. 212 To eliminate the need for renewal of oaths of offi ce 

upon change of status of employees of the Senate or 

House of Representatives.

P.L. 45 69 Stat. 66

 May 25, 1955

H. Rept. 220 To amend the Act establishing a Commission of 

Fine Arts.

P.L. 59 69 Stat. 82

 June 3, 1955

H. Rept. 632 To provide for the appointment of Doctor Jerome C. 

Hunsaker as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution. 

P.L. 107 69 Stat. 190-191

 June 29, 1955

H. Rept. 620 Dedicating the Lee Mansion in Arlington National 

Cemetery as a permanent memorial to Robert E. Lee.

P.L. 109 69 Stat. 191

June 29, 1955

H. Rept. 619 To authorize the erection of a memorial gift from the 

Government of Venezuela.

P.L. 230 69 Stat. 493

Aug. 4, 1955

H. Rept. 1309 To authorize the printing and binding of a revised 

edition of Cannon’s Procedure in the House of 

Representatives and providing that the same shall be 

subject to copyright by the author.

P.L. 246 69 Stat. 533-534

Aug. 5, 1955

H. Rept. 1270 To establish a Permanent Committee for the Oliver 

Wendell Holmes Devise, and for other purposes.

P.L. 296 69 Stat. 584-589

 Aug. 9, 1955

H. Rept. 60 Th e Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955.

P.L. 372 69 Stat. 694

 Aug. 11, 1955

H. Rept. 1617 To establish a commission to formulate plans for a 

memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

P.L. 420 70 Stat. 30-31

Feb. 25, 1956

H. Rept. 1755 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

relating to electrical or mechanical offi ce equipment 

for the use of members, offi cers, and committees 

of the House of Representatives, to remove offi cers 

and committees from certain limitations and other 

purposes.

P.L. 421 70 Stat. 31

Feb. 27, 1956

H. Rept. 1694 To provide for a prorated stationery allowance in the 

case of a Member of the House of Representatives 

elected for a portion of a term.

P.L. 422 70 Stat. 31-32

Feb. 27, 1956

H. Rept. 1700 To increase the amount of telephone and telegraph 

service furnished to Members of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 531

84th Congress (January 5, 1955–July 27, 1956)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 461 70 Stat. 84

 April 2, 1956

H. Rept. 1901 To authorize the American Battle Monuments 

Commission to prepare plans and estimates for the 

erection of a suitable memorial to General John J. 

Pershing.

P.L. 468 70 Stat. 98

April 6, 1956

H. Rept. 1961 Providing for the fi lling of a vacancy in the Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, of the 

class other than Members of Congress (Everette Lee 

DeGolyer). 

P.L. 469 70 Stat. 98

April 6, 1956

H. Rept. 1962 Providing for the fi lling of a vacancy in the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, of the class 

other than Members of Congress (Crawford Hallock 

Greenwalt). 

P.L. 470 70 Stat. 98

April 6, 1956

H. Rept. 1963 Providing for the fi lling of a vacancy in the Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, of the 

class other than Members of Congress (Caryl Parker 

Haskins). 

P.L. 504 70 Stat. 126-127

May 2, 1956

H. Rept. 2023 To authorize the printing and binding of a revised 

edition of Cannon’s Procedure in the House of 

Representatives and providing that the same shall be 

subject to copyright by the author.

P.L. 910 70 Stat. 922

Aug. 2, 1956

H. Rept. 1900 Authorizing the acceptance of a gift from the Ericsson Memorial Committee of the United States. 

P.L. 967 70 Stat. 990

Aug. 3, 1956

Considered by unanimous consentRelating to clerk hire of members of the House of 

Representatives.

85th Congress (January 3, 1957–August 24, 1958)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 85-8 71 Stat. 6-7

March 14, 1957

H. Rept. 58 To provide for the reappointment of Doctor Arthur 

H. Compton as Citizen Regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 85-9 71 Stat. 7

March 14, 1957

H. Rept. 57 Providing for the fi lling of a vacancy in the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, of class other 

than Members of Congress. 

P.L. 85-53 71 Stat. 81

 June 13, 1957

H. Rept. 470 To fi x the responsibilities of certifying offi cers and 

disbursing offi cer of the Library of Congress.

P.L. 85-54 71 Stat. 82

June 13, 1957

H. Rept. 457 To amend the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1955, 

with reference to offi cial offi ce expenses of Members 

of Congress.
532 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

85th Congress (January 3, 1957–August 24, 1958)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 85-131 71 Stat. 346

Aug. 14, 1957

H. Rept. 812 Authorizing the erection on public grounds in the 

city of Washington, District of Columbia, of a 

memorial to the dead of the Second Infantry Division, United States Forces, World War II and the 

Korean confl ict.

P.L. 85-147 71 Stat. 368

Aug. 16, 1957

H. Rept. 811 To organize and microfi lm the papers of Presidents of 

the United States in the collections of the Library of 

Congress.

P.L. 85-289 71 Stat. 614

Sept. 4, 1957

H. Rept. 1224 To amend the Act of June 23, 1949, as amended, to 

provide that telephone and telegraph service furnished members of the House of Representatives shall 

be computed on a biennial rather than an annual 

basis.

P.L. 85-301 71 Stat. 622

Sept. 7, 1957

H. Rept. 1222 To provide additional offi ce space in home districts 

of Congressmen, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners.

P.L. 85-308 71 Stat. 630

Sept, 7, 1957

H. Rept. 1228 To amend the act entitled “An act to provide books 

for the adult blind.”

P.L. 85-357 72 Stat. 68

March 28, 1958

H. Rept. 1533 To provide for the transfer of the Civil Service Commission Building in the District of Columbia to the 

Smithsonian Institution to house certain art collections of the Smithsonian Institution.

86th Congress (January 7, 1959–September 1, 1960)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 86-5 73 Stat. 14

March 25, 1959

H. Rept. 61 To provide for the reappointment of Robert V. Fleming as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 86-17 73 Stat. 20

April 27, 1959

called up by unanimous 

consent

Providing for printing copies of “Cannon’s Procedure 

in the House of Representatives.”

P.L. 86-18 73 Stat. 21

May 13, 1959

H. Rept. 286 Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to present 

to the Senators and Representatives in the Congress 

from the State of Alaska the offi cial fl ag of the United 

States bearing 49 stars which is fi rst fl own over the 

west front of the U.S. Capitol.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 533

86th Congress (January 7, 1959–September 1, 1960)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 86-102 73 Stat. 224

July 23, 1959

H. Rept. 372 To amend section 105 of the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1955, with respect to the disposition upon 

the death of a Member of the House of Representatives of amounts held for him in the trust fund 

account in the Offi ce of the Sergeant at Arms, and of 

other amounts due such Member.

P.L. 86-111 73 Stat. 261-262

July 28, 1959

 H. Rept. 569 Authorizing the Boy Scouts of America to erect 

a memorial on public grounds in the District of 

Columbia to honor the members and leaders of such 

Organization, and for other purposes.

P.L. 86-214 73 Stat. 445-446

 Sept. 1, 1959

 H. Rept. 208 To reserve a site in the District of Columbia for the 

erection of a memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 

to provide for a competition for the design of such 

memorial, and to provide additional funds for holding the competition.

P.L. 86-340 73 Stat. 605-606

Sept. 21, 1959

 H. Rept. 920 To amending the Act of June 23, 1949, as amended, 

to provide that telephone and telegraph service 

furnished members of the House of Representatives 

shall be computed on a unit basis.

P.L. 86-379 73 Stat, 702-703

Sept. 23, 1959

 H. Rept. 919 To amend the Act of October 24, 1951, to provide 

salary increases for the Police of the National Zoological Park.

P.L. 86417 74 Stat. 37

April 8, 1960

H. Rept. 1441 To establish a commission to formulate plans for a 

memorial to James Madison.

P.L. 86-426 74 Stat. 53-54

April 20, 1960

called up by unanimous 

consent

Relating to the payment of salaries of employees of 

the Senate.

P.L. 86-461 74 Stat. 128

 May 13, 1960

 H. Rept. 1435 To amend the Act relating to the Commission of 

Fine Arts.

P.L. 86-469 74 Stat. 132

 May 14, 1960

 H. Rept. 1061 To authorize a preliminary study and review in connection with proposed additional building for the 

Library of Congress.

P.L. 86-484 74 Stat. 154

 June 1, 1960

 H. Rept. 1439 Authorizing the erection in the District of Columbia 

of a memorial to Mary McLeod Bethune.

P.L. 86-485 74 Stat. 154

 June 1, 1960

H. Rept. 1440 Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to present to 

the Senators and Representative in the Congress from 

the State of Hawaii the offi cial fl ag of the United 

States bearing 50 stars which is fi rst fl own over the 

west front of the U.S. Capitol.

P.L. 86-748 74 Stat. 883-884

Sept. 13, 1960

 H. Rept. 1728 To remove copyright restrictions upon the musical 

composition “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,” and 

for other purposes.
534 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

86th Congress (January 7, 1959–September 1, 1960)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 86-749 74 Stat. 884

Sept. 13, 1960

H. Rept. 1741 Authorizing the erection of a statue of Taras 

Shevchenko on public grounds in the District of 

Columbia.

P.L. 86-754 74 Stat. 898-899

Sept. 13, 1960

called up by unanimous 

consent

Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised 

edition of the Constitution of the United States of 

America—Analysis and Interpretation, published 

in 1953 as Senate Document Numbered 170 of the 

Eighty-second Congress.

P.L. 86-764 74 Stat. 904-905

 Sept. 13, 1960

 H. Rept. 1760 To amend the Act entitled “An Act to establish a 

memorial to Th eodore Roosevelt in the National 

Capital” to provide for the construction of such 

memorial by the Secretary of the Interior.

87th Congress (January 3, 1961–October 13, 1962)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 87-2 75 Stat. 5

March 21, 1961

H. Rept. 138 To authorizing the distribution of copies of the Congressional Record to former members of Congress 

requesting such copies.

P.L. 87-11 75 Stat. 19

March 29, 1961

H. Rept. 131 To providing for the reappointment of Dr. Jerome C. 

Hunsaker as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 87-85 75 Stat. 202-203

July 11, 1961

H. Rept. 631 To providing for the increased distribution of the 

Congressional Record to the Federal judiciary.

P.L. 87-107 75 Stat. 221

July 26,1961

H. Rept. 610 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

relating to electrical and mechanical offi ce equipment 

for the use of Members, offi cers, and committees of 

the House of Representatives to provide that Members having constituencies of fi ve hundred thousand 

shall be entitled to an additional $500 worth of 

equipment; to increase the number of electric typewriters which may be furnished Members; and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 87-113 75 Stat. 241

July 31, 1961

 H. Rept. 608 To providing for the indexing and microfi lming 

of certain records of the Russian Orthodox Greek 

Catholic Church in Alaska in the collections of the 

Library of Congress.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 535

87th Congress (January 3, 1961–October 13, 1962)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 87-186 75 Stat. 414-415 

Aug. 30,1961

 H. Rept. 609 To establish a National Armed Forces Museum 

Advisory Board of the Smithsonian Institution, to 

authorize expansion of the Smithsonian Institution’s facilities for portraying the contributions of 

the Armed Forces of the United States and for other 

purposes.

P.L. 87-263 75 Stat. 544

Sept. 21, 1961

 H. Rept. 901 To amend the Act of August 16, 1957, relating to 

microfi lming of papers of Presidents of the United 

States, to remove certain liabilities of the United 

States with respect to such activities.

P.L. 87-323 75 Stat. 685

Sept. 26, 1961

 H. Rept. 1129 Providing for printing copies of “Cannon’s procedure 

in the House of Representatives”.

P.L. 87-364 75 Stat. 783-784

Oct. 4, 1961

 H. Rept. 1213 Authorizing the creation of a commission to consider and formulate plans for the construction in the 

District of Columbia of an appropriate permanent 

memorial to the memory of Woodrow Wilson.

P.L. 87-430 76 Stat. 53

April 4, 1962

H. Rept. 1504 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. Caryl P. 

Haskins as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 87-431 76 Stat. 53

April 4, 1962

H. Rept. 1505 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. Crawford H. 

Greenewalt as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 87-443 76 Stat. 62

April 27, 1962

suspension of rules To provide for a National Portrait Gallery as a bureau 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 87-517 76 Stat. 128

July 2, 1962

committee discharged Providing for the fi lling of a vacancy in the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution of the class 

other than Members of Congress.

P.L. 87-522 76 Stat. 135

July 3, 1962

 H. Rept. 1892 To amend section 2 of the Act entitled “An Act to 

create a Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, and 

for other purposes”, approved March 3, 1925, as 

amended (2 U.S.C. 158), relating to deposits with the 

Treasurer of the United States of gifts and bequests 

to the Library of Congress and to raise the statutory 

limitation provided for in that section.

P.L. 87-579 76 Stat. 352-356

Aug. 9, 1962

H. Rept. 724 To revise the laws relating to depository libraries.

P.L. 87-605 76 Stat. 404

Aug. 24, 1962

 H. Rept. 1506 Authorizing the State of Arizona to place in the 

Statuary Hall collection at the U.S. Capitol the statue 

of Eusebio Francisco Kino.
536 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

87th Congress (January 3, 1961–October 13, 1962)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 87-753 76 Stat. 750

 Oct. 5, 1962

committee discharged To amend section 9(b) of the Act entitled “An Act 

to prevent pernicious political activities” (the Hatch 

Political Activities Act) to reduce the requirement 

that the Civil Service Commission impose no penalty 

less than thirty days’ suspension for any violation of 

section 9 of the Act.

P.L. 87-842 76 Stat. 1079

 Oct. 18, 1962

 H. Rept. 2148 To direct the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission to consider possible changes in the 

winning design for the proposed memorial or the 

selection of a new design for such memorial.

88th Congress (January 9, 1963–October 3, 1964)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 88-13 77 Stat. 13

April 26, 1963

H. Rept. 85 To provide for the reappointment of John Nicholas 

Brown as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 88-70 77 Stat. 82

July 19, 1963

H. Rept. 471 To amend the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 

1959, to provide for reimbursement of transportation 

expenses for Members of the House of Representatives.

P.L. 88-105 77 Stat. 130

Aug. 27, 1963

H. Rept. 571 To amend the Act of March 2, 1931, to provide that 

certain proceedings of the Veterans of World War I 

of the United States, Inc., shall be printed as a House 

document, and for other purposes.

P.L. 88-155 77 Stat. 272

Oct. 18, 1963

H. Rept. 854 To authorize the printing and binding of an edition 

of Senate Procedure and providing the same shall be 

subject to copyright by the authors.

P.L. 88-224 77 Stat. 469

Dec. 21, 1963

H. Rept. 931 To amend the Act of March 2, 1931, to provide that 

certain proceedings of the AMVETS (American Veterans of World War II), shall be printed as a House 

document, and for other purposes.

P.L. 88-299 78 Stat. 183

April 27, 1964

H. Rept. 997 To amend the act entitled “An act to organize and 

microfi lm the papers of Presidents of the United 

States in the collections of the Library of Congress”.

P.L. 88-391 78 Stat. 365-366

Aug. 1964

H. Rept. 998 To amend the Act of October 24, 1951 (65 Stat. 634; 

40 U.S.C. 193(n)-(w)), as amended, relating to the 

policing of the buildings and grounds of the Smithsonian Institution and its constituent bureaus.

P.L. 88-441
APPENDIX B. TABLES 537

88th Congress (January 9, 1963–October 3, 1964)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 88-549 78 Stat. 754

Aug. 31, 1964

H. Rept. 1773 To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to employ 

aliens in a scientifi c or technical capacity.

P.L. 88-652 78 Stat. 1079-1084

Oct. 13, 1964

 H. Rept. 1771 House Employees Position Classifi cation Act. To 

provide for an equitable system for the classifi cation 

of certain positions under the House of Representatives, and for other purposes. 

89th Congress (January 4, 1965–October 22, 1966)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 89-122 79 Stat. 517

 Aug. 13, 1965

H. Rept. 520 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, to 

expand the types of equipment furnished Members 

of the House of Representatives.

P.L. 89-123 79 Stat. 517

Aug. 13, 1965

H. Rept. 250 To provide for the reappointment of Robert V. Fleming as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 89-131 79 Stat. 544

Aug. 21, 1965 

H. Rept. 725 To Amend the Act of June 23, 1949, relating to the 

telephone and telegraph service furnished members of 

the House of Representatives.

P.L. 89-147 79 Stat. 583-584

Aug. 28, 1965

H. Rept. 724 To amend the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act 

1959, to provide for reimbursement of transportation 

expenses for members of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.

P.L. 89-192 79 Stat. 822

Sept. 21, 1965

H. Rept. 882 Extending for 2 years the existing authority for the 

erection in the District of Columbia of a memorial to 

Mary McLeod Bethune.

P.L. 89-211 79 Stat. 857

Sept. 29, 1965 

H. Rept. 726 To amending the Act of July 2, 1954, relating to 

offi ce space in the districts of Members of the House 

of Representatives, and the Act of June 27, 1956, 

relating to offi ce space in the States of Senators.

P.L. 89-248 79 Stat. 968-969

 Oct. 9, 1965

H. Rept. 1009 To amend the Joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

to increase the number of electric typewriters which 

may be furnished to Members by the Clerk of the 

House.

P.L. 89-269 79 Stat. 991

 Oct. 19,1965

H. Rept. 881 To amend the Act of May 17, 1954 (68 Stat. 98), as 

amended, providing for the construction of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial at the site of old 

Saint Louis, Missouri, and for other purposes.
538 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

89th Congress (January 4, 1965–October 22, 1966)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 89-305 79 Stat. 1126-1127

Oct. 30, 1965

H. Rept. 1043 To increase the appropriation for the Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 89-325 79 Stat. 1215

11/7/1965

H. Rept. 1174 Authorizing Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home to erect a 

memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs.

P.L. 89-342 79 Stat. 1302

 Nov. 11, 1965 

H. Rept. 1122 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

relating to electrical and mechanical offi ce equipment 

for the use of Members, offi cers, and committees 

of the House of Representatives, to remove certain 

limitations.

P.L. 89-509 80 Stat. 310-312

July 19, 1966

H. Rept. 1042 To amending Public Law 722 of the Seventy-Ninth 

Congress and Public Law 85-935, relating to the 

National Air Museum of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 89-522 80 Stat. 330-331

 July 30, 1966

H. Rept. 1600 To amend the Acts of March 3, 1931, and October 

9, 1962, relating to the furnishing of books and 

other materials to the blind so as to authorize the 

furnishing of such books and other materials to other 

handicapped persons.

P.L. 89-617 80 Stat. 868-869

 Oct. 30, 1966

H. Rept. 2018 To create a bipartisan commission to study Federal 

laws limiting political activity by offi cers and employees of Government.

P.L. 89-674 80 Stat. 953

 Oct. 10, 1966

suspension of the rules Relating to the National Museum of the Smithsonian 

Institution.

P.L. 89-678 80 Stat. 956

Oct. 15, 1966

H. Rept. 2221 To Authorize the public printer to print for and 

deliver to the general services administration an 

additional copy of certain publications.

P.L. 89-772 80 Stat. 1322

Nov. 6, 1966

H. Rept. 2204 To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to negotiate cooperative agreements 

granting concessions at the National Zoological Park 

to certain nonprofi t organizations and to accept voluntary services of such organizations or of individuals, and for other purposes.

P.L. 89-786 80 Stat. 1377

 Nov. 7, 1966

H. Rept. 1864 To authorize the erection of a memorial in the District of Columbia to General John J. Pershing.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 539

90th Congress (January 10, 1967–October 14, 1968)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

 Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 90-27 81 Stat. 58

June 16, 1967

H. Rept. 264 To providing for the reappointment of Jerome C. 

Hunsaker as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 90-55 81 Stat. 124

 July 20, 1967

H. Rept. 364 To extend the life of the Commission on Political 

Activity of Government Personnel.

P.L. 90-79 81 Stat. 192

Aug. 31, 1967

H. Rept. 557 To increase the amount of real and personal property 

which may be held by the American Academy in 

Rome.

P.L. 90-86 81 Stat. 226

Sept. 17, 1967

H. Rept. 559 To amend the Legislative Branch Appropriation 

Act 1959, as it relates to transportation expenses of 

Members of the House of Representatives, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 90-116 81 Stat. 337

Oct. 24, 1967

H. Rept. 560 To amend the joint resolution of March 25, 1953, 

to increase the number of typewriters which may be 

furnished to Members by the Clerk of the House.

P.L. 90-322 82 Stat. 167

May 30, 1968

H. Rept. 1381 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. Crawford H. 

Greenewalt as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 90-323 82 Stat. 167

May 30, 1968

H. Rept. 1382 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. Caryl P. 

Haskins as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 90-324 82 Stat. 168

May 30, 1968

H. Rept. 1383 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. William A. 

M. Burden as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 90-343 82 Stat. 180-181

June 18, 1968

committee discharged To amend the Federal voting Assistance Act of 

1955 so as to recommend to the several States that 

its absentee registration and voting procedures be 

extended to all citizens residing abroad.

P.L. 90-344 82 Stat. 181-182

 June 18, 1968

H. Rept. 1385 To amend the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 

(69 Stat. 584).

P.L. 90-610 82 Stat. 1201

 Oct. 21, 1968

 H. Rept. 1940 To amend the Act of August 4, 1950 (64 Stat. 411), 

entitled “An Act relating to the policing of the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress” to provide salary increases for members of the police force 

of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes.

P.L. 90-637 82 Stat. 1356-1359

 Oct. 24, 1968

H. Rept. 1942 To establish a National Memorial to Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968.
540 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

91st Congress (January 3, 1969–January 2, 1971)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 91-27 83 Stat. 36

June 13, 1969

H. Rept. 91-246 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. John Nicholas Brown as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 91-30 86 Stat. 37

June 17, 1969

H. Rept. 91-247 To provide for the appointment of Th omas J. Watson, 

Jr., as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 91-34 83 Stat. 41

 June 30, 1969

H. Rept. 91-248 To revise the pay structure of the police force of the 

National Zoological Park, and for other purposes.

P.L. 91-138 83 Stat. 284-291

Dec. 5, 1969

H. Rept. 91-569 Federal Contested Election Act

P.L. 91-139 83 Stat. 291-292

 Dec. 5, 1969

H. Rept. 91-582 To provide certain equipment for use in the offi ces of 

Members, offi cers, and committees of the House of 

Representatives, and for other purposes.

P.L. 91-167 83 Stat. 453

Dec. 26, 1969

H. Rept. 91-733 To change the limitation on the number of apprentices authorized to be employees of the Government 

Printing Offi ce, and for other purposes.

P.L. 91-238 84 Stat. 201

May 1, 1970 

H. Rept. 91-493 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

the removal of the Francis Asbury statue, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 91-255 84 Stat. 217

May 18, 1970 

H. Rept. 91-1001 To provide for the appointment of James Edwin 

Webb as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 91-276 84 Stat. 303

 June 12, 1970

H. Rept. 91-714 To authorize the Public Printer to fi x the subscription 

price of the daily Congressional Record.

P.L. 91-277 84 Stat. 303

 June 12, 1970

H. Rept. 91-999 Extending for four years the existing authority for the 

erection in the District of Columbia of a memorial to 

Mary McLeod Bethune.

P.L. 91-280 84 Stat. 309

June 12, 1970

H. Rept. 91-1003 To transfer from the Architect of the Capitol to the 

Librarian of Congress the authority to purchase offi ce 

equipment and furniture for the Library of Congress.

P.L. 91-281 84 Stat. 309

June 12, 1970

H. Rept. 91-997 To amend section 11 of an Act approved August 4, 

1950 entitled “An Act relating to the policing of the 

buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress.”

P.L. 91-287 84 Stat. 320-322

June 23, 1970

H. Rept. 91-734 To amend title 44, United States Code, to facilitate 

the disposal of Government records without suffi cient value to warrant their continued preservation, 

to abolish the Joint Committee on the Disposition of 

Executive Papers, and for other purposes.

P.L. 91-359 84 Stat. 668

July 31, 1970

H. Rept. 91-1120 To provide for the designation of special policemen 

at the Government Printing Offi ce, and for other 

purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 541

91st Congress (January 3, 1969–January 2, 1971)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 91-369 84 Stat. 693

July 31, 1970

H. Rept. 91-1121 To authorize the Public Printer to grant time off 

as compensation for overtime worked by certain 

employees of the Government Printing Offi ce, and 

for other purposes.

P.L. 91-398 84 Stat. 837

Sept. 8, 1970

 H. Rept. 91-1305 To authorize additional funds for the operation of the 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission.

P.L. 91-551 84 Stat. 1439-1440

Dec. 15, 1970

H. Rept. 91-725 To amend sections 5580, 5581, and 5582 of the 

Revised Statutes to provide for additional members of 

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution 

and to increase the number of members constituting 

a quorum.

P.L. 91-589 84 Stat. 1585-1587

Dec. 24, 1970

H. Rept. 1598 Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised 

edition of the Constitution of the United States of 

America—Analysis and Interpretation, of decennial 

revised editions thereof, and of biennial cumulative 

supplements to such revised editions.

P.L. 91-629 84 Stat. 1875 H. Rept. 91-1766 To amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953; 

20 U.S.C. 65A), relating to the National Museum of 

the Smithsonian Institution, so as to authorize additional appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution 

for carrying out the purposes of said Act.

92nd Congress (January 21, 1971–October 18, 1972)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 92-56 85 Stat. 156-157

July 29, 1971

H. Rept. 92-208 Authorizing the acceptance, by the Joint Committee 

on the Library on behalf of the Congress, from the 

United States Capitol Historical Society, of preliminary design sketches and funds for murals in the east 

corridor, fi rst fl oor, in the House wing of the Capitol, 

and for other purposes.

P.L. 92-57 85 Stat. 157

July 29, 1971

H. Rept. 92-311 Extending for two years the existing authority for the 

erection in the District of Columbia of a memorial to 

Mary McLeod Bethune.

P.L. 92-225 86 Stat. 3-20

February 7, 1972

H. Rept. 92-752 Fair Election Campaign Act of 1971.

P.L. 92-290 86 Stat. 135

May 11, 1972

H. Rept. 1019 To provide for the appointment of A. Leon Higginbotham, Junior as citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
542 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

92nd Congress (January 21, 1971–October 18, 1972)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 92-291 86 Stat. 135

May 11, 1972

H. Rept. 1020 To provide for the appointment of John Paul Austin 

as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 92-292 86 Stat. 135

May 11, 1972

H. Rept. 1021 To provide for the appointment of Robert Francis 

Goheen as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 92-332 86 Stat. 401

June 30, 1972

H. Rept. 1029 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the planning and design of a national memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and for other 

purposes.

P.L. 92-333 86 Stat. 401

June 30, 1972

H. Rept. 1030 To restore to the Custis-Lee Mansion located in the 

Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia, 

its original historical name, followed by the explanatory memorial phrase, so that it shall be known as 

Arlington House, Th e Robert E. Lee Memorial.

P.L. 92-368 86 Stat. 507

Aug. 10, 1972

H. Rept. 1201 To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize 

the Public Printer to designate the library of the 

highest appellate court in each State as a depository 

library.

P.L. 92-373 86 Stat. 528

Aug. 10, 1972

H. Rept. 1200 To amend section 906 of title 44, United States 

Code, to provide copies of the daily and semimonthly 

Congressional Record to libraries of certain United 

States courts.

P.L. 92-386 86 Stat. 559

Aug. 16, 1972

H. Rept. 1285 To authorize the printing and binding of a revised 

edition of Senate Procedure and providing the same 

shall be subject to copyright by the author.

P.L. 92-422 86 Stat. 678-679

Sept. 18, 1972

H. Rept. 1032 Proposing the erection of a memorial on public 

grounds in the District of Columbia, or its environs, 

in honor and commemoration of the Seabees of the 

United States Navy.

P.L. 92-564 86 Stat. 1178-1179

Oct. 25, 1972

H. Rept. 1417 To authorize the preparation of a history of public 

works in the United States.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 543

93rd Congress (January 3, 1973–December 20, 1974)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 93-175 87 Stat. 693

Dec. 12, 1973

H. Rept. 93-613 To amend the Act of August 4, 1950 (64 Stat. 411), 

to provide salary increases for members of the police 

force of the Library of Congress.

P.L. 93-314 88 Stat. 239

June 8, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1069 Relating to the sale and distribution of the 

Congressional Record.

P.L. 93-345 87 Stat. 339

July 12, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1162 To amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953, 

20 U.S.C. 65a), relating to the National Museum of 

the Smithsonian Institution, so as to authorize additional appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution 

for carrying out the purposes of said Act.

P.L. 93-384 88 Stat. 741

Aug. 23, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1254 To authorize the erection of a monument to the dead 

of the First Infantry Division United States Forces in 

Vietnam.

P.L. 93-398 88 Stat. 795

Aug. 30, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1250 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. William A. 

M. Burden as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 93-399 88 Stat. 795

Aug. 30, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1251 To provide for the reappointment of Dr. Caryl P. 

Haskins as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 93-401 88 Stat. 800

Aug. 30, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1252 To provide for the appointment of Dr. Murray GellMann as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 93-432 88 Stat. 1186-1187

Oct. 4, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1253 To authorize the conveyance to the city of Salem, 

Illinois, of a statue of William Jennings Bryan.

P.L. 93-443 88 Stat. 1263

Oct. 15, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1239 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.

P.L. 93-446 88 Stat. 1362

Oct. 17, 1974

H. Rept. 93- 1397 Authorizing the procurement of an oil portrait and 

marble bust of former Chief Justice Earl Warren.

P.L. 93-462 88 Stat. 1388

Oct. 20, 1974

H. Rept. 93-597 To authorize the disposition of certain offi ce equipment and furnishings, and for other purposes.

P.L. 93-526 88 Stat. 1695-1702

Dec. 19, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1507 Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act

P.L. 93-532 88 Stat. 1723

Dec. 22, 1974

H. Rept. 93-1425 Relating to former Speakers of the House of 

Representatives.
544 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

94th Congress (January 14, 1975–October 1976)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available 

for consideration

Title

P.L. 94-65 89 Stat. 378

July 31, 1975

H. Rept. 248 To provide for the Reappointment of Dr. John Nicholas Brown as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 94-66 89 Stat. 379

July 31, 1975

H. Rept. 249 To provide for the Reappointment of Th omas J. Watson, Junior, as Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 94-74 89 Stat. 407

Aug. 8, 1975

H. Rept. 94-257 To reserve a site for the use of the Smithsonian Institution.

 P.L 94-98 89 Stat. 480

 Sept. 19, 1975

H. Rept. 258, p. 2 To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to plan 

museum support facilities.

P.L. 94-201 89 Stat. 1129-1134

 Jan. 2, 1976

H. Rept. 94-273,

pt. 1 & 2

American Folklife Preservation Act

P.L. 94-203 89 Stat. 1142-1144

 Jan. 2, 1976

H. Rept. 94-649,

pt. 1 & 2

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975.

P.L. 94-209 90 Stat. 30

Jan. 5, 1976

H. Rept. 94-715 To amend the National Portrait Gallery Act to Redefi ne “Portraiture.”

P.L. 94-211 90 Stat. 151

Jan. 2, 1976

H. Rept. 94-740 To authorize the One Hundred and First Airborne 

Division Association to erect a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs.

P.L. 94-261 90 Stat. 326

April 11, 1976

H. Rept. 94-974 To amend chapter 33 of title 44, United States Code, 

to change the membership and extend the life of the 

National Study Commission on Records and Documents of Federal Offi cials, and for other purposes.

P.L. 94-264 90 Stat. 329

April 13, 1976

H. Rept. 94-719 To name the building known as the Library of Congress Annex to be the Library of Congress Th omas 

Jeff erson Building.

P.L. 94-283 90 Stat. 475

May 11, 1976 

H. Rept. 94-917 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 

1976.

P.L. 94-287 90 Stat. 519

May 21, 1976

committee discharged To authorize the erection of a statue of Bernardo de 

Galvez on public grounds in the District of Columbia.

P.L. 94-289 90 Stat. 521

May 22, 1976

H. Rept. 94-737 To provide for adjusting the amount of interest paid 

on funds deposited with the Treasury of the United 

States by the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board.

P.L. 94-290 90 Stat. 522

May 22, 1976

H. Rept. 94-738 To provide for adjusting the amount of interest paid 

on funds deposited with the Treasury of the United 

States pursuant to the Act of August 20, 1912, “An 

Act To Accept and Fund the Bequest of Gertrude M. 

Hubbard” (37 Stat. 319).

P.L. 94-315 90 Stat. 693

June 21, 1976

H. Rept. 94-1126 To provide for the Reappointment of James E. Webb 

as a Citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 545

94th Congress (January 14, 1975–October 1976)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available 

for consideration

Title

P.L. 94-327 90 Stat. 726

 June 30, 1976

committee discharged Relating to the display of certain historical documents within the United States Capitol Building 

during the calendar year 1976.

P.L. 94-336 90 Stat. 795

July 1, 1976

H. Rept. 1125 To amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953; 

U.S.C. 65a), relating to the National Museum of the 

Smithsonian Institution, so as to Authorize Additional Appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution 

for carry out the purposes of this Act.

P.L. 94-418 90 Stat. 1278 H. Rept. 94-1395 To provide for adjusting the amount of interest paid 

on funds deposited with the Treasury of the United 

States as a permanent loan by the Board of Trustees 

of the National Gallery of Art. 

P.L. 94-497 90 Stat. 2377-2378

Oct. 14, 1976

H. Rept. 94-1396 Authorizing the acceptance of the Joint Committee 

on the Library on behalf of the Congress, from the 

United States Capitol Historical Society, of preliminary design sketches and funds for murals, in the fi rst 

fl oor corridors in the House wing of the Capitol, and 

for other purposes.

P.L. 94-551 90 Stat. 2537-2539

10/18/1976

H. Rept. 94-1730 To provide for the printing and distribution of the 

Precedents of the House of Representatives compiled 

and prepared by Lewis Deschler.

95th Congress (January 3, 1977–October 15, 1978)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available 

for consideration

Title

P.L. 95-129 91 Stat. 1151-1152

Oct. 13, 1977

H. Rept. 95-491 To provide for the establishment of a Center for the 

Book in the Library of Congress, and for other purposes.

P.L. 95-259 91 Stat. 196

April 17, 1978

H. Rept. 95-865 To amend the American Folklife Preservation Act to 

extend the authorizations of appropriations contained 

in such Act.

P.L. 95-260 92 Stat. 197-198

 April 17, 1978

H. Rept. 95-462 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to memorialize the fi fty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence in Constitution Gardens in the District of 

Columbia.

P.L. 95-261 92 Stat. 199

 April 17, 1978

H. Rept. 95-650 To amend title 44, United States Code, to provide for 

the designation of libraries of accredited law schools 

as depository libraries of Government publications.
546 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

95th Congress (January 3, 1977–October 15, 1978)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available 

for consideration

Title

P.L. 95-274 92 Stat. 233

May 10, 1978

 H. Rept. 1064 To provide for the reappointment of A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 95-275 92 Stat. 234

May 10, 1978

 H. Rept. 1065 To provide for the reappointment of John Paul Austin as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 95-276 92 Stat. 235

May 10, 1978

 H. Rept. 1066 To provide for the appointment of Anne Legendre 

Armstrong as citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 95-277 92 Stat. 236

May 12, 1978

 H. Rept. 1067 To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to designate 

an Assistant Secretary to serve in his place as a member 

of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board.

P.L. 93-286 92 Stat. 278-279

 May 26, 1978

H. Rept. 1062 To establish a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship in 

Social and Political Th ought at the Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian 

Institution and to establish a trust fund to provide a 

stipend for such fellowship.

P.L. 95-414 92 Stat. 911-913

Oct. 5, 1978

committee discharged To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to acquire 

the Museum of African Art, and for other purposes.

P.L. 95-440 92 Stat. 1063

 10/10/1978

H. Rept. 1263 To amend sections 3303a and 1503 of title 44, 

United States Code, to require mandatory application 

of the General Records Schedules to all Federal agencies and to resolve confl icts between authorizations 

for disposal and to provide for the disposal of Federal 

Register documents.

P.L.95-470 92 Stat. 1323-1324

Oct. 17, 1978

committee discharged To authorize withholding from salaries disbursed 

by the Secretary of the Senate and from certain 

employees under the jurisdiction of the Architect 

of the Capitol for contribution to certain charitable 

organizations.

P.L. 95-569 92 Stat. 2444 committee discharged To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to construct museum support facilities.

P.L. 95-591 92 Stat. 2523-2528

Nov. 4, 1978

committee discharged Presidential Records Act of 1978.

P.L. 95-593 92 Stat. 2535-2539

 Nov. 4, 1978

H. Rept. 95-1568 To improve the administration and operation of the 

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, and for 

other purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 547

96th Congress (January 15, 1979–December 16, 1970)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 96-36 93 Stat. 94

 July 20, 1979

called up by unanimous 

consent

To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to plan 

for the development of the area south of the original 

Smithsonian Institution Building adjacent to Independence Avenue at Tenth Street, Southwest, in the 

city of Washington.

P.L. 96-152 93 Stat. 1099-1100

Dec. 20, 1979

H. Rept. 96-581 To establish by law the position of Chief of the Capitol Police, and for other purposes.

P.L. 96-187 93 Stat. 1339-1369

Jan. 8, 1980

H. Rept. 96-422 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979

P.L. 96-214 94 Stat. 122

March 24, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To provide that receipts from certain sales of items by 

the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate to Senators and 

committees and offi ces of the Senate shall be credited 

to the appropriation from which such items were 

purchased.

P.L. 96-253 98 Stat. 398 called up by unanimous 

consent

To authorize appropriations for Federal Election 

Commission for fi scal year 1981.

P.L. 96-268 98 Stat. 485

June 13, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 953; 

20 U.S.C. 65a), relating to the National Museum of 

the Smithsonian Institution, so as to authorize additional appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution 

for carrying out the purposes of said Act.

P.L. 96-269 94 Stat. 486

6/13/1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To rename certain buildings of the Library of Congress.

P.L. 96-297 94 Stat. 827-828

 July 1, 1980

H. Rept. 1129 To authorize the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, 

Inc., to establish a memorial.

P.L. 96-313 94 Stat. 955

July 25, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To provide for the reappointment of William A. M. 

Burden as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 96-314 94 Stat. 956

July 25, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To provide for the reappointment of Murray GellMann as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 96-337 94 Stat. 1066

 9/4/1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To authorize the Camp Fire Girls of Cundys Harbor, 

Maine, to erect a memorial in the District of Columbia.

P.L. 96-388 94 Stat. 1547-1550

Oct. 7, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To establish the United States Holocaust Memorial 

Council.

P.L. 96-441 94 Stat. 1884 

Oct. 13, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To rename the National Collection of Fine Arts 

and the Museum of History and Technology of the 

Smithsonian Institution as the National Museum of 

American Art and the National Museum of American History, respectively.
548 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

96th Congress (January 15, 1979–December 16, 1970)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 96-444 94 Stat. 1889-1890

Oct. 13, 1980 

called up by unanimous 

consent

To transfer certain employees of the Architect of the 

Capitol to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 

the Senate.

P.L. 96-522 94 Stat. 3038

Dec. 12, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

To authorize appropriations for the American Folklife 

Center for fi scal years 1982, 1983, and 1984.

P.L. 96-529 94 Stat. 3119-3120

Dec. 15, 1980 

called up by unanimous 

consent

Authorizing appropriation of funds for acquisition of 

a monument to Doctor Ralph J. Bunche and installation of such monument in Ralph J. Bunche Park in 

New York City.

P.L. 96-563 94 Stat. 3304

Dec. 22, 1980

called up by unanimous 

consent

Providing for appointment of David C. Acheson as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

97th Congress (January 5, 1981–December 23, 1982)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

 Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 97-19 95 Stat. 103

July 6, 1981

discharged by 

unanimous consent

To permit certain funds allocated for offi cial expenses 

of Senators to be utilized to procure additional offi ce 

equipment.

P.L. 97-20 95 Stat. 104

July 6, 1981

discharged by 

unanimous consent

To authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 

the Senate subject to the approval of the Committee 

on Rules and Administration, to enter into contracts 

which provide for the making of advance payments for 

computer programming services.

P.L. 97-84 95 Stat. 1097

Nov. 20, 1981

discharged by 

unanimous consent

To expand the membership of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council from sixty to sixty-fi ve and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 97-199 96 Stat. 121

 June 22, 1982

H. Rept. 97-503 To amend section 5590 of the Revised Statutes to 

provide for adjusting the rate of interest paid on funds 

of the Smithsonian Institution deposited with the Treasury of the United States as a permanent loan.

P.L. 97-224 96 Stat. 243

 July 28, 1982

called up by 

unanimous consent

To authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior, 

subject to the supervision and approval of the Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, to proceed 

with the construction of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

Memorial, and for other purposes.

P.L. 97-260 96 Stat. 1100

Sept. 13, 1982

H. Rept. 97-753 To provide for appointment of Nancy Hanks as a Citizen 

Regent of the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 549

97th Congress (January 5, 1981–December 23, 1982)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

 Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 97-264 96 Stat. 1133

Sept. 24, 1982

H. Rept. 97-752 To amend the Act to establish a Permanent Committee 

for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Device, and for other 

purposes. 

98th Congress (January 3, 1983–October 12, 1984)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

 Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 98-73 97 Stat. 406

 Aug. 11, 1983

H. Rept. 98-330 To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to purchase 

land in Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

P.L. 98-87 97 Stat. 493

Aug. 26, 1983

H. Rept. 98-329 Providing for the appointment of Jeannine S. Clark as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Board.

P.L. 98-208 97 Stat. 1392

Dec. 5, 1983

called up by unanimous 

consent

To provide for the appointment of Samuel Curtis 

Johnson as a citizen regent of the Board of regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 98-340 98 Stat. 308-310

July 3, 1984

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To direct the Architect of the Capitol and the District 

of Columbia to enter into an agreement for the conveyance of certain real property to direct the Secretary of the Interior to permit the District of Columbia 

and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority to construct, maintain, and operate certain 

transportation improvements on Federal property, 

and to direct the Architect of the Capitol to provide 

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

access to certain real property.

P.L. 98-392 98 Stat. 1362-1363

Aug. 21, 1984

H. Rept. 871 To authorize appropriations for the American Folklife 

Center for fi scal years 1985 and 1986, and for other 

purposes.

P.L. 98-435 98 Stat. 1678-1680

Sept. 28, 1984

H. Rept. 98-852 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped 

Act.

P.L. 98-534 98 Stat. 2712

Oct. 19, 1984

H. Rept. 1084 Authorizing the Law Enforcement Offi cers Memorial Fund to establish a memorial in the District of 

Columbia or its environs.

P.L. 98-535 98 Stat. 2713

Oct. 19, 1984

H. Rept. 1014 Providing for the reappointment of Anne L. Armstrong as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institutions.

P.L. 98-536 98 Stat. 2714

Oct. 19, 1984

H. Rept. 1013 Providing for the reappointment of A. Leon Higginbotham, Junior, as a citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
550 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

98th Congress (January 3, 1983–October 12, 1984)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

 Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 98-537 98 Stat. 2715

Oct. 19, 1984

H. Rept. 98-1051 Authorizing the Kahlil Gibran Centennial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs.

99th Congress (January 3, 1985–October 18, 1986)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 99-65 99 Stat. 163

July 12, 1985

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

Relating to certain telephone services for Senators.

P.L. 99-70 99 Stat. 168

July 22, 1985

H. Rept. 99-179 Providing for the appointment of Barnabas McHenry 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 99-75 99 Stat. 176

July 29, 1985

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To authorize the printing and binding of a revised 

edition of Senate Procedure and providing the same 

shall be subject to copyright by the author.

P.L. 99-87 99 Stat. 290-292

Aug. 9, 1985

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To amend Title 3, United States Code, to authorize 

the use of penalty and frank mail in eff orts relating to 

the location and recovery of missing children.

P.L. 99-285 100 Stat. 407

May 1, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To provide for the reappointment of Carlisle H. 

Humelsine as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 99-286 100 Stat. 408

May 1, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To provide for the reappointment of William G. 

Bowen as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 99-410 100 Stat. 924-930

 Aug. 28, 1986

H. Rept. 99-765 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act.

P.L. 99-423 100 Stat. 963

 Sept. 30, 1986

Called up by the House 

under suspension of 

rules

To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to plan and 

construct facilities for certain science activities of the 

Institution, and for other purposes.

P.L. 99-439 100 Stat. 1085

Oct. 2, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

Relating to telephone services for Senators.

P.L. 99-473 100 Stat. 1212

Oct. 16, 1986

H. Rept. 99-800 To authorize appropriations for the American Folklife 

Center for fi scal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 99-510 100 Stat. 2079

Oct. 21, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To provide for the reappointment of David C. Acheson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 551

99th Congress (January 3, 1985–October 18, 1986)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 99-558 100 Stat. 3144

Oct. 27, 1986

H. Rept. 99-340 To authorize the erection of a memorial on Federal 

land in the District of Columbia and its environs 

to honor the estimated fi ve thousand courageous 

slaves and free black persons who served as soldiers 

and sailors or provided civilian assistance during the 

American Revolution and to honor the countless 

black men, women, and children who ran away from 

slavery or fi led petitions with courts and legislatures 

seeking their freedom.

P.L. 99-572 100 Stat. 3226-3227

 Oct. 28, 1986

H. Rept. 99-341 To authorize the erection of a memorial on Federal 

land in the District of Columbia and environs to 

honor members of the Armed Forces of the United 

States who served in the Korean war.

P.L.99-610 100 Stat. 3477

Nov. 6, 1986

H. Rept. 99-342 To authorize the establishment of a memorial on 

Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor women who have served in the Armed 

Forces of the United States.

P.L. 99-620 100 Stat. 3493

Nov. 6, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

Authorizing establishment of a memorial to honor 

American Armored Force.

P.L. 99-621 100 Stat. 3494

Nov. 6, 1986

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To provide for the reappointment of Murray GellMann as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

100th Congress (January 6, 1987–October 22, 1988)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 100-83 101 Stat. 549

Aug. 4, 1987

H. Rept. 100-215 To confer the honorary status of Librarian of Congress Emeritus on Daniel J. Boorstin.

P.L. 100-123 101 Stat. 794-795

 Oct. 5, 1987

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

Relating to the payment for telecommunications 

equipment and certain services furnished by the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

P.L. 100-135 101 Stat. 811-812

 Oct. 16, 1987

H. Rept. 100-214 To change the title of employees designated by the 

Librarian of Congress for police duty and to make the 

rank structure and pay for such employees the same 

as the rank structure and pay for the Capitol Police.

P.L. 100-137 101 Stat. 814-818

Oct. 21/1987

Committee discharged 

by unanimous consent

To combine the Senators’ Clerk Hire Allowance 

Account and the Senators’ Offi cial Offi ce Expense 

Account into a combined single account to be known 

as the “Senators’ Offi cial Personnel and Offi ce 

Expense Account”, and for other purposes.
552 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

100th Congress (January 6, 1987–October 22, 1988)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 100-158 101 Stat. 896-898

Nov. 9, 1987

H. Rept. 100-221 Providing support for the Civic Achievement Award 

Program in Honor of the Offi ce of Speaker of the 

House of Representatives.

P.L. 100-230 101 Stat. 1563-1564

 January 5, 1988

H. Rept. 100-405 To permit certain private contributions for construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial to be 

invested temporarily in Government securities until 

such contributed amounts are required for disbursement for the memorial.

P.L. 100-482 102 Stat. 2327

Oct. 11. 1988

Called up by the House 

under suspension of 

rules

Commemorating the bicentennial of the French 

Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man 

and of the Citizen.

P.L. 100-660 102 Stat. 3922

Nov. 15, 1988 

H. Rept. 948 To authorize the Vietnam Women’s Memorial 

Project, Inc., to establish a memorial on Federal land 

in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor 

women of the Armed Forces of the United States 

who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the 

Vietnam era.

101st Congress (January 3, 1989–October 28, 1990)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or 

other action making the measure 

available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 101-99 103 Stat. 637

Sept. 26, 1989

H. Rept. 101-134 To authorize appropriations for American Folklife Center 

for fi scal years 1990, 1991, and 1992.

P.L. 101-118 103 Stat. 698

Oct. 17, 1989

H. Rept. 101-135 To authorization appropriations for fi scal year 1990 for 

the Civic Achievement Award Program in Honor of the 

Offi ce of Speaker of the House of Representatives, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 101-157 103 Stat. 938

Nov. 17, 1989

Committee 

discharged

Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1989.

 P.L. 101-181 103 Stat. 1326

Nov. 28, 1989

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Providing for the reappointment of Samuel C. Johnson 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

 P.L. 101-182 103 Stat. 1327

Nov. 28, 1989

Called up by the 

House under suspension of rules

Providing for the reappointment of Jeannine Smith Clark 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 101-185 103 Stat. 1336-1347

Nov. 28, 1989

H. Rept. 101-340, 

pt. 2

National Museum of the American Indian Act.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 553

101st Congress (January 3, 1989–October 28, 1990)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or 

other action making the measure 

available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 101-187 103 Stat. 1350

Nov. 28, 1989

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Approving the location of the memorial to the women 

who served in Vietnam.

P.L. 101-210 103 Stat. 1839

Dec. 7, 1989

Committee 

discharged

Providing for the appointment of Homer Alfred Neal of 

Michigan as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 101-211 103 Stat. 1840

Dec. 7, 1989

Committee 

discharged

Providing for the appointment of Robert James Woolsey, 

Jr. of Maryland as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 101-258 104 Stat. 118-119

 March 27, 1990

Committee 

discharged

Providing for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Dwight David Eisenhower.

P.L. 101-263 104 Stat. 125

 April 4, 1990

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To provide for an increase in the maximum rates of basic 

pay for the police force of the National Zoological Park.

P.L. 101-268 104 Stat. 132

April 9, 1990

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To amend the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 to 

provide that the Secretary of Education and two additional individuals from private life shall be members of the 

Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International 

Center for Scholars.

P.L. 101-280 104 Stat. 149-163

May 4, 1990

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To make technical changes in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

P.L. 101-347 104 Stat. 398

Aug. 9, 1990

Committee 

discharged

Recognizing the National Fallen Firefi ghters’ Memorial 

at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland 

as the offi cial national memorial to volunteer and career 

fi refi ghters who die in the line of duty.

P.L. 101-358 104 Stat. 419

Aug. 10, 1990

Committee 

discharged

To authorize the Colonial Dames at Gunston Hall to 

establish a memorial to George Mason in the District of 

Columbia.

P.L. 101-423 104 Stat. 912-913

Oct. 12, 1990

Discharged 

by unanimous 

consent

To establish a national policy on permanent papers.

P.L. 101-428 104 Stat. 928-930

May 15, 1990

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Capitol Police Retirement Act.

P.L. 101-455 104 Stat. 1067

Oct. 24, 1990

Committee 

discharged

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 

Institution to plan, design, construct, and equip space in 

the East Court of the National Museum of Natural History building, and for other purposes.
554 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

101st Congress (January 3, 1989–October 28, 1990)

P. L. 

Number

U.S. Statutes at 

Large Citation

Report no. or 

other action making the measure 

available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 101-483 104 Stat. 1165-1166

May 31, 1990

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Committing to the private sector the responsibility for 

support of the Civic Achievement Award Program in 

Honor of the Offi ce of Speaker of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.

P.L. 101-569 104 Stat. 2806

Nov. 15, 1990

Committee 

discharged 

Providing for the appointment of Ira Michael Heyman of 

California as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 101-586 104 Stat. 2876

Nov. 15, 1990

Committee 

discharged 

Providing for the reappointment of Anne Legendre Armstrong as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

102nd Congress (January 3, 1991–October 9, 1992)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 102-41 105 Stat. 242

May 8, 1991

Committee 

discharged 

Recognizing the Astronauts Memorial at the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center as the national memorial to 

astronauts who die in the line of duty.

P.L. 102-246 106 Stat. 31-32

Feb. 18, 1992

H. Rept. 102-727 To provide for additional membership on the 

Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 102-336 106 Stat. 864

Aug. 7, 1992

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To extend the boundaries of the grounds of the 

National Gallery of Art to include the National 

Sculpture Garden.

P.L. 102-355 106 Stat. 947-948

 Aug. 26, 1992

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To amend the Act of May 17, 1954, relating to the 

Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial to authorize 

increased funding for the East Saint Louis portion 

of the Memorial, and for other purposes.

P.L. 102-397 106 Stat. 1949-1952

Oct. 6, 1992

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To add to the area in which the Capitol Police have 

law enforcement authority, and for other purposes.

P.L. 102-399 106 Stat. 1954

Oct. 7, 1992

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To authorize appropriations for the American 

Folklife Center for fi scal year 1993.

P.L. 102-407 106 Stat. 1991

Oct. 13, 1992

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To authorize the construction of a monument in 

the District of Columbia or its environs to honor 

Th omas Paine, and for other purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 555

102nd Congress (January 3, 1991–October 9, 1992)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 102-412 106 Stat. 2104

Oct. 14, 1992

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Authorizing the government of the District of 

Columbia to establish, in the District of Columbia 

or its environs, a memorial to African-Americans 

who served with Union forces during the Civil War.

 P.L. 102-451 106 Stat. 2253-2254

 Oct. 23, 1992

H. Rept. 102-979. To authorize certain additional uses of the Library 

of Congress Special Facilities Center, and for other 

purposes.

P.L. 102-459 106 Stat. 2268-2269

10/23/1992

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To amend certain provisions of law relating to 

establishment, in the District of Columbia or its 

environs, of a memorial to honor Th omas Paine.

P.L. 102-502 106 Stat. 3273-3274

Oct. 24, 1992

H. Rept. 102-727 Authorizing the Go For Broke National Veterans 

Association Foundation to establish a memorial in 

the District of Columbia or its environs to honor 

Japanese American patriotism in World War II.

P.L. 102-529 106 Stat. 3463-3464 

Oct. 27, 1992

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To authorize appropriations for the United States 

Holocaust Memorial Council, and for other purposes.

103rd Congress (January 5, 1993–December 1, 1994)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 103-15 107 Stat. 47-48

April 12, 1993

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Concerning the dedication of the United States 

Holocaust Memorial Museum.

P.L. 103-31 107 Stat. 77-89

May 20, 1993

H. Rept. 103-9 National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

P.L. 103-32 107 Stat. 90-92

May 25, 1993

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To authorize the construction of a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia or its environs 

to honor members of the Armed Forces who served 

in World War II and to commemorate United States 

participation in that confl ict.

P.L. 103-40 107 Stat. 112-114

June 8, 1993

H. Rept. 103-108 Government Printing Offi ce Electronic Information 

Access Enhancement Act of 1993.

P.L. 103-57 107 Stat. 279

Aug. 2, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To provide for planning and design of a National 

Air and Space Museum extension at Washington 

Dulles International Airport.

P.L. 103-98 107 Stat.1015

Oct. 6, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To continue the authorization of appropriations for 

the East Court of the National Museum of Natural 

History, and for other purposes.
556 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

103rd Congress (January 5, 1993–December 1, 1994)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 103-101 107 Stat. 1020

Oct. 8, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To authorize appropriations for the American 

Folklife Center for fi scal years 1994 and 1995.

P.L. 103-151 107 Stat. 1515

Nov. 24, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct the 

West Court of the National Museum of Natural 

History building.

P.L. 103-163 107 Stat. 1973

Dec. 2, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To authorize the Air Force Memorial Foundation to 

establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or 

its environs.

P.L 103-172 107 Stat. 1995-1997

 Dec. 2, 1993

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act.

P.L. 103-348 108 Stat. 3133-3135

Oct. 6, 1994

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Vegetable Ink Printing Act of 1994.

P.L. 103-384 108 Stat. 4067-4068

Nov. 22, 1994

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment 

Act of 1994.

104th Congress (January 4, 1995–October 4, 1996)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 104-79 109 Stat. 791-793

Dec. 28, 1995

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 to improve the electoral process by permitting 

electronic fi ling and preservation of Federal Election 

Commission reports, and for other purposes.

P.L. 104-81 109 Stat. 795

Dec. 28, 1995

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred 

Neal as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

 P.L. 104-82 109 Stat. 796

Dec. 18, 1995

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, 

Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 104-83 109 Stat. 797

Dec. 18, 1995

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Providing for the appointment of Anne 

D’Harnoncourt as a citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 104-84 109 Stat. 798

Dec. 18, 1995

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 557

104th Congress (January 4, 1995–October 4, 1996)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 104-129 110 Stat. 1199 

April 9, 1996

Committee 

discharged

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with 

respect to two bills of the One Hundred Fourth 

Congress.

P.L. 104-186 110 Stat. 1718-1753

Aug. 20, 1996

H. Rept. 104-82 House of Representatives Administrative Reform 

Technical Corrections Act.

P.L. 104-278 110 Stat. 3355-3357

Oct. 9, 1996

Called up by the 

House under 

suspension of rules

National Museum of the American Indian Act 

Amendments of 1996.

P.L. 104-279 110 Stat. 3358-

Oct. 9, 1996

Committee 

discharged

To authorize the Capitol Guide Service to accept 

voluntary services.

P.L. 104-285 110 Stat. 3377-3386

Oct. 11, 1996

Committee 

discharged

National Film Preservation Act of 1996.

105th Congress (January 7, 1997–December 19, 1998)

P. L. NumberU.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 105-120 111 Stat. 2527

Nov. 26, 1997

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with 

respect to certain specifi ed bills of the One Hundred 

Fifth Congress.

P.L. 105-126 111 Stat. 2524

Dec. 1, 1997

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To extend the authorization of use of offi cial mail in 

the location and recovery of missing children, and 

for other purposes.

P.L. 105-144 111 Stat. 2627-2628

Dec. 15, 1997

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To authorize acquisition of certain real property for 

the Library of Congress, and for other purposes.

P.L. 105-223 112 Stat. 1250-1251

Aug. 7, 1998

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To establish the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund on behalf of the families of Detective John 

Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph 

Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police.

P.L. 105-253 112 Stat. 1887

Oct. 12, 1998

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Waiving certain enrollment requirements for the 

remainder of the One Hundred Fifth Congress with 

respect to any bill or joint resolution making general 

or continuing appropriations for fi scal year 1999.
558 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

106th Congress (January 9, 1999–December 15, 2000)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 106-14 113 Stat. 24

April 6, 1999

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Providing for the reappointment of Barber B. Conable, Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 106-15 113 Stat. 25

April 6, 1999

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Providing for the reappointment of Dr. Hanna H. 

Gray as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 106-16 113 Stat. 26

April 6, 1999

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Providing for the reappointment of Wesley S. Williams, Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

 P.L. 106-19 113 Stat. 29

April 8, 1999

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To make technical corrections with respect to the 

monthly reports submitted by the Postmaster General on offi cial mail of the House of Representatives.

P.L. 106-93 113 Stat. 1310

Nov. 10, 1999

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Waiving certain enrollment requirements for the 

remainder of the fi rst session of the One Hundred 

Sixth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or continuing 

appropriations for fi scal year 2000.

 P.L. 106-99 113 Stat. 1330-1331

Nov. 12, 1999

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

History of the House Awareness and Preservation 

Act.

 P.L. 106-100 113 Stat. 1332

Nov. 12, 1999

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To permit the enrollment in the House of Representatives Child Care Center of children of Federal 

employees who are not employees of the legislative 

branch.

P.L. 106-198 114 Stat. 249

May 5, 2000

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Alan G. Spoon 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

 P.L. 106-199 114 Stat. 250

May 5, 2000

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the reappointment of Manuel L. 

Ibanez as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 106-380 114 Stat. 1447-1449

Oct. 27, 2000

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Veterans’ Oral History Project Act.

P.L. 106-383 114 Stat. 1459

Oct. 27, 2000

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To authorize the Smithsonian Institution to plan, 

design, construct, and equip laboratory, administrative, and support space to house base operations 

for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 

Submillimeter Array located on Mauna Kea at Hilo, 

Hawaii.

P.L. 106-474 114 Stat. 2085-2095

Nov. 9, 2000

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

National Recording Preservation Act of 2000.

P.L. 106-481 114 Stat. 2187-2191

Nov. 9, 2000 

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement 

Act of 2000. To establish revolving funds for the 

operation of certain programs and activities of the 

Library of Congress, and for other purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 559

107th Congress (January 3, 2001–November 22, 2002)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 107-4 115 Stat. 5

March 16, 2001

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 107-54 115 Stat. 270

Oct. 24, 2001

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the reappointment of Anne 

d’Harnoncourt as a citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 107-55 115 Stat. 271

Oct. 24, 2001

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Roger W. Sant 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 107-101 115 Stat. 973

Dec. 21, 2001

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 107-106 115 Stat. 1009-1011

Dec. 28, 2001

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

National Museum of African American History and 

Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission 

Act of 2001.

P.L. 107-155 116 Stat. 81-116

March 27, 2002

Reported adversely by 

the Committee

(H. Rept. 107-131, 

Part I.)

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

P.L. 107-252 116 Stat. 1666

Oct. 29, 2002

H. Rept. 107-329, 

Part I.

Help America Vote Act of 2002.

108th Congress (January 7, 2003–December 8, 2004)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 108-72 117 Stat. 888-890

Aug. 15, 2003

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act.

P.L. 108-102 117 Stat. 1198

Oct. 29, 2003

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To amend title 44, United States Code, to transfer 

to the Public Printer the authority over the individuals responsible for preparing indexes of the Congressional Record, and for other purposes.

P.L. 108-122 117 Stat. 1344

Nov. 11, 2003

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Recognizing the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National 

Museum of Dentistry, an affi liate of the Smithsonian Institution in Baltimore, Maryland, as the 

offi cial national museum of dentistry in the United 

States.

P.L. 108-184 117 Stat. 2676-2683

Dec. 16, 2003

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

National Museum of African American History and 

Culture Act.
560 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

108th Congress (January 7, 2003–December 8, 2004)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 108-284 118 Stat. 916

Aug. 2, 2004

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Eli Broad as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 108-322 118 Stat. 1216-1217

Oct. 5, 2004

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Commemorating the opening of the National 

Museum of the American Indian.

P.L. 108-349 118 Stat. 1389

Oct. 21, 2004

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 

1995 to permit members of the Board of Directors 

of the Offi ce of Compliance to serve for 2 terms.

109th Congress (January 4, 2005–December 9, 2006)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 109-9 119 Stat. 218-227

April 27, 2005

Committee 

discharged

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. 

P.L. 109-11 119 Stat. 229

May 5, 2005

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 109-12 119 Stat. 230

May 5, 2005

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Robert P. Kogod 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 109-38 119 Stat. 408

July 27, 2005

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To permit the individuals currently serving as 

Executive Director, Deputy Executive Directors, 

and General Counsel of the Offi ce of Compliance 

to serve one additional term.

P.L. 109-116 119 Stat. 2524-2525

Dec. 1, 2005

Committee 

discharged

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to 

obtain a statue of Rosa Parks and to place the statue 

in the United States Capitol in National Statuary 

Hall, and for other purposes.

P.L. 109-216 120 Stat. 331

April 13, 2006

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 109-217 120 Stat. 332

April 13, 2006

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the reappointment of Alan G. Spoon 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 109-244 120 Stat. 574

July 25, 2006

Considered by 

unanimous consent

Authorizing the printing and binding of a supplement to, and revised edition of, Senate Procedure.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 561

109th Congress (January 4, 2005–December 9, 2006)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 109-426 120 Stat. 2911

Dec. 20, 2006

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To reauthorize permanently the use of penalty and 

franked mail in eff orts relating to the location and 

recovery of missing children.

P.L. 109-427 120 Stat. 2912

Dec. 20, 2006

Considered by 

unanimous consent

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to 

accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner 

Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location 

in the rotunda of the Capitol.

110th Congress (January 4, 2007–January 3, 2009)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 110-2 121 Stat. 4-5

Feb. 2, 2007

Considered by 

previous special order

House Page Board Revision Act of 2007.

P.L. 110-119 121 Stat. 1347

Nov. 16, 2007

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 110-120 121 Stat. 1348

Nov. 19, 2007

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To provide technical corrections to Public Law 109-

116 (2 U.S.C. 2131a note) to extend the time period 

for the Joint Committee on the Library to enter into 

an agreement to obtain a statue of Rosa Parks, and 

for other purposes.

P.L. 110-155 121 Stat. 1829

Dec. 21, 2007

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the reappointment of Patricia Q. 

Stonesifer as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 110-164 121 Stat. 2459

Dec. 26, 2007

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act 

of 1995 to permit individuals who have served as 

employees of the Offi ce of Compliance to serve as 

Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, 

or General Counsel of the Offi ce, and to permit 

individuals appointed to such positions to serve one 

additional term.

P.L. 110-178 121 Stat. 2546-2555

Jan. 7, 2008

H. Rept. 110-470, 

Part I.

U.S. Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police 

Merger Implementation Act of 2007.

P.L. 110-197 122 Stat. 655

March 14, 2008

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Providing for the appointment of John W. 

McCarter as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 110-336 122 Stat. 3726-3728

Oct. 2, 2008

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film 

Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008.
562 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

110th Congress (January 4, 2007–January 3, 2009)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 110-420 122 Stat. 4778-4881

Oct. 15, 2008

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Code Talkers Recognition Act of 2008.

P.L. 110-437 122 Stat. 4983-4999

Oct. 20, 2008

H. Rept. 110-535 Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008.

P.L. 110-433 122 Stat. 4971

Oct. 16, 2008

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To extend through 2013 the authority of the Federal 

Election Commission to impose civil money penalties on the basis of a schedule of penalties established 

and published by the Commission.

111th Congress (January 6, 2009–January 3, 2011)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 111-17 123 Stat. 1610

May 7, 2009

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

A joint resolution providing for the appointment 

of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 111-19 123 Stat. 1612

May 12, 2009

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

Civil Rights Project Act of 2009.

P.L. 111-40 123 Stat. 1958

July 1, 2009

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 

Women Airforce Service Pilots (“WASP”).

P.L. 111-64 123 Stat. 2002

Sept. 18, 2009

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

A joint resolution providing for the appointment of 

France A. Cordova as a citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 111-66 124 Stat. 49

March 4, 2010

H. Rept. 111-66 United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009.

P.L. 111-114 123 Stat. 3026

Dec. 14, 2009

Committee 

discharged; 

Considered by 

unanimous consent

A bill to permit each current member of the Board 

of Directors of the Offi ce of Compliance to serve for 

3 terms.

P.L. 111-165 124 Stat. 1185

May 14, 2010

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To provide that Members of Congress shall not 

receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during 

fi scal year 2011.

P.L. 111-248 124 Stat. 2628

Sept. 30 , 2010

H. Rept. 111-569 To improve the operation of certain facilities and 

programs of the House of Representatives, and for 

other purposes.

P.L. 111-316 124 Stat. 3452

 Dec. 18, 2010

Considered under 

suspension of the rules

To improve certain administrative operations of the 

Offi ce of the Architect of the Capitol, and for other 

purposes.
APPENDIX B. TABLES 563

112th Congress, 1st session (January 5, 2011–January 3, 2012)

P. L. Number U.S. Statutes at Large 

Citation

Report no. or other 

action making the 

measure available for 

consideration 

Title

P.L. 112-12 125 Stat. 214

April 25, 2011

Committee 

discharged; 

Considered by 

unanimous consent

A joint resolution providing for the appointment of 

Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent of the Board of 

Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 112-19 125 Stat. 231 

June 24 , 2011

Committee 

discharged; 

Considered by 

unanimous consent

A joint resolution providing for the reappointment 

of Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

P.L. 112-20 125 Stat. 232

June 24, 2011

Committee 

discharged; 

Considered by 

unanimous consent

A joint resolution providing for the reappointment 

of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent of the Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

INDEX 565

INDEX

A 

Abbitt, Watkins M., 115–116

Abernethy, Th omas G., 121

Absentee Ballot Track, Receive, and Confi rm Act, 85

Absentee balloting, 44

Absentee voting, 71–73

Accessibility policies, 178

Accounts, Committee on, 30–31

Acoustics. See Ventilation and Acoustics, Committee on 

ADA. See Americans with Disabilities Act

Adams, John Quincy, 280, 337, 411–412

Adams, Robert McCormick, 421

Administration, Committee on. See House Administration, 

Committee on

Administrative Fine Program, 106

Administrative operations oversight, 211–221

Administrative Reform Resolution, 55–56, 218

Administrative responsibilities

administrative and fi nancial operations, 211–221

art, 274–280

franking privilege, 204–211

funding accounts, 149–158

government shutdown, 272–273

House pages, 280–285

Legislative Service Organizations, 285–292

member compensation, 269–272

offi ce space, 194–198

offi cial travel, 198–204

service and sustainability, 248–269

staffi ng, 165–194

technology, 221–248

unoffi cial member caucuses, 285–292

Administrative Review, Commission on, 216–217

Administrative Service Center, 420

ADP. See Automatic data processing center

Adverse Action Review Procedures, 175

AFP. See Administrative Fine Program

African American History and Culture, National Museum 

of, 421–422

African Art, National Museum of, 419–420

Air and Space Museum, 417–418

Air conditioning. See Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics

ALA. See American Library Association

Albert, Carl, 182

Alford, Dale, 119–120

Allen, Amos, 38

Allen, Th omas H., 103

Allowances. See Member allowances

Alternate Ride Home Program, 263

American Folklife Center, 370–371

American Indian, National Museum of the, 420–421

American Latino, National Museum of the, 422

American Library Association, 365

American Political Science Association, 69

Americans with Disabilities Act, 178

Anderson, Jack, 174

Anderson, John, 100

Anderson, Robert, 135

Andrew W. Mellon Memorial, 429

Annunzio, Frank

biography, 12

“motor-voter” bill introduction, 78

political action committee bill, 101

Anthrax, 58, 346

AOC. See Architect of the Capitol

Appropriations, Committee on

funding accounts exemption, 152–153

House personnel responsibilities, 166–167

jurisdictional relationship with Committee on House 

Administration, 59

APSA. See American Political Science Association

Archer, Roy “Pat,” 131

Architect of the Capitol, 55, 171, 248, 250, 258, 277

Arkansas

Bill McCuen v. Jay Dickey, 4th District of Arkansas, 

134–135

Dale Alford, 5th District of Arkansas, 119–120

Armed Forces Museum, 416
Armed Forces voting rights, 68–75

Armey, Dick, 105

Army Medical Library, 423–424

Artwork. See also Committee on the Library

in the Capitol and House Offi ce buildings, 274–280

ASC. See Administrative Service Center

Ashbrook, John, 174

Ashmore, Robert T., 96, 174, 196

Ashmore-Goodell bill, 97

Asian and Pacifi c Islander-Americans in Congress, 220

Associate staff , 167

Atwater, John, 43

Audio-Digital Preservation Center, 367

Audits, fi nancial, 220–221

Austin, Warren R., 431

Automated political telephone calls, 106

Automatic data processing center, 222

Ayres, William H., 118

B

Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi cit Control Act of 

1985, 155, 367

Baldwin, Abraham, 28

Banking and Currency Committee, 157

Barber shop, 264–266

Bartlett, Charles, 31, 35

Bass, Charles, 135

Bates, Jim, 258

BCRA. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Beach, Lewis, 237

Beauty shop, 266–269

Bender, George, 66

Bethune, Mary McLeod, 429

Bicentennial of the United States Capitol, Commission on 

the, 56

Billington, James H., 367, 368

Bills enacted into law, 526–559

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 23, 43, 

103–105

Bipartisan Task Force on Campaign Reform, 102

Black Americans in Congress, 1870–2006, 220

Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, 427–428

Blackburn, Benjamin B., 123–124

Blackney, William W., 118

Blaine, James G., 42

Blaz, Ben, 133–134, 279

Board of Directors, 177

Boarman, William, 389

BOB. See Bureau of the Budget

Boehner, John, 183, 285

Bolivar, Simon, 430

Bolling, Richard, 216

Bombing, Capitol, 342–343

Boorstin, Daniel J., 372

Botanic Gardens, 347, 396–398

Bowsher, Charles, 291

Boy Scouts of America Memorial, 429

Boyd, Dr. David G., 349

Boyd, Julian P., 392

Boys Town, 429

Brackenridge, William, 396

Brady, Mathew, 33

Brady, Robert

biography, 18

as House Administration Committee chairman, 106, 

250, 349, 350, 368

photo, vi

Breenwood, Earnest, 118

Broadcasting fl oor debate, 244–247

Brooks, Jack, 245–246

Brooks, Susan M., 135

Browner, Vincent L., 118

Bryan, William Jennings, 429

Buchanan, Vern, 139–140

Buckley v. Valeo, 99

Bureau of the Budget, 380

Burleson, Omar T.

biography, 6

as Committee on House Administration chairman, 

156, 182, 189, 200–201, 254, 275

Poll tax bill motion, 67

as Subcommittee on Elections chairman, 69

Burton, Harold H., 281

Bush, George H.W., 79, 102, 105, 344, 367

Bush, George W., 80, 83

Butterfi eld, Lyman H., 392

Byron, Beverly, 129

C

C-SPAN. See Cable Satellite Public Aff airs Network
INDEX 567

CAA. See Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

Cable Satellite Public Aff airs Network, 246

Calhoun, John C., 252

Califano, Joseph A., Jr., 283

California

Albert Dehr v. Robert L. Leggett, 4th District of 

California, 128

David A. Tunno v. Victor V. Veysey, 38th District of 

California, 125

Frederick M. Roberts v. Helen Gahagan Douglas, 14th

District of California, 117

Robert K. Dornan v. Loretta Sanchez, 46th District of 

California, 135–137

Roderick J. Wilson v. Andrew J. Hinshaw, 40th District 

of California, 126

Roy “Pat” Archer v. Ron Packard, 43rd District of 

California, 131

Susan M. Brooks v. Jane F. Harman, 36th District of 

California, 135

Campaign fi nance legislation

attainment of, 104–105

Citizens United decision, 107–108

congressional statement, 101

enactment of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002, 103–104

FECA Amendments, 98–100

origins and development, 95–96

Political Action Committee issue, 100–101

post-BCRA issues, 105–107

push for public fi nancing and expenditure limits, 

102–103

Republican control of the House and, 103

role of the House Administration Committee, 96–108

Campaign fi nance regulation, 52

Campbell, Allen G., 29

Cannon, Clarence, 153

Cannon, George Q., 29

Cannon, Joseph G., 35, 42

Cannon’s Precedents, 189

Cannon’s Procedure in the House of Representatives, 381

CAO. See Chief Administrative Offi cer

Capitol, House wing

administration and operation, 248–249

art in, 274–280

Capitol bombing, 342–343

Capitol Buildings Art Collection, 277

Capitol Historical Preservation Commission, 55

Capitol Police, 57, 249, 337–354

Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 

2009, 351–352

Capitol Police Retirement Act, 345

Capitol Power Plant, 260

Capitol Preservation Commission, 249, 276–277

Capitol Rotunda, 248–249

Capitol Security, Subcommittee on, 348–349

Capitol Visitor Center, 248–252

CapNet, 230

Capuano, Michael, 349

Carlisle, John, 35

Carter, Jimmy, 71, 77–78, 80, 99, 394

Carter, Steven V., 119

CASE. See Computer-Aided Software Engineering

Case, Ed, 137

Catering Guide of the House Restaurant System, 256

Caucuses, unoffi cial Member, 285–292

Celler, Emanuel, 156, 182

Center for Legislative Archives, 447

Center for the Book, 371

CEOVS. See Chief Executive Offi cer for Visitor Services

Chairmen of the Committee, 1–19, 479–483

Chambers, George O., 120–121

Chief Administrative Offi cer, 56–57, 171–172, 198, 214, 

219–220, 232

Chief Executive Offi cer for Visitor Services, 250

Chinese Relief Expedition Memorial, 427

Chiperfi eld, Robert, 199

Citizens living abroad, voting rights, 70–75

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 107–108

Civil Rights History Project Act of 2008, 422–423

Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009, 373–374, 423

Civil Rights Movement, 373

Civil Service Commission, 353, 432

Civil Service Committee, 59

Civil Service Retirement Act, 192

Civil War Memorial, 427

Claiborne, John Francis, 33

Clapp, Almon W., 379

Clark, Champ, 42

Clark, James “Champ,” 35

Clarke, James McClure, 131–132
568 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Classifi cation Act of 1949, 353

Clay, William, 128–129, 369

Clerk Hire Allowance, 160, 287–288

Clerk of the House, 57, 214, 237

Cleveland, James, 339–340

Client/Server Computing, 229

Clinton, William J., 79, 80, 103

Clough, G. Wayne, 415

CMF. See Congressional Management Foundation

CMOs. See Congressional Member Organizations

CMS. See Correspondence Management System

Coad, Merlin, 119

Cobb, Th omas R., 35

Cochran, John, 31

Code of Offi cial Conduct, 212

Cohen, Steve, 278

COMIS. See Committee Meeting Information System

Commemorative Works Act, 430

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies FY2008, 

106

Commission on Administrative Review, 216–217

Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, 55, 57

Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States 

Capitol, 56

Committee Calendar, 155

Committee Calendar System, 229

Committee Handbook, 167

Committee Meeting Information System, 226

Committee on Accounts, 30–31

Committee on Appropriations

funding accounts exemption, 152–153

House personnel responsibilities, 166–167

jurisdictional relationship with Committee on House 

Administration, 59

Committee on Disposition of Executive Papers, 40

Committee on Education and Labor, 157–158

Committee on Election of the President, Vice President, 

and Representatives in Congress, 43–44

Committee on Elections, 27–30

Committee on Engraving, 36–37

Committee on Enrolled Bills, 37–39

Committee on House Administration. See House Administration, Committee on

Committee on Memorials, 44–45

Committee on Mileage

assignments to, 35–36

role of, 33–35

Committee on Printing, 36–37

Committee on the Election of the President, Vice President, 

and Representatives in Congress, 43–44

Committee on the Library

jurisdictional highlights, 33

Library of Congress Building construction, 32

role of, 32

Committee on Ventilation and Acoustics, 40–43

Committee Records Guidelines, 395

Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 53, 59, 156, 

183

Committee staff

additional staff by resolution, 180

allocations, 181–183

committee business hours, 185

continuation of, 180

distinctions, 179–180

interim funding, 181

levels, 179–180

oversight of contractors, consultants, and detailees, 

184–185

regulations concerning, 178–179

select committee staffi ng, 184

subcommittee staffi ng, 184

Committees’ Congressional Handbook, 24, 154–155

Communications allowance, 162

Communications Networking, 229

Compensation, member, 269–272

Compilation of Works of Art and Other Objects in the United 

States Capitol, 275

Compliance, Offi ce of, 57

Compulsory School Attendance Act for the District of 

Columbia, 281

Computer-Aided Software Engineering, 229

Computer Information and Services Working Group, 232

Computerization, 222–237

Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 57, 174–177

Congressional Directory, 389–390

Congressional documents distribution, 376–396

Congressional elections. See also Election of the President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, 

Committee on

renewed push for public fi nancing, 99–100
INDEX 569

Congressional Globe, 377, 379, 385

Congressional Handbook, 382

Congressional Intern Program, 168–169

Congressional Mailing Standards, Commission on, 55, 57

Congressional Management Foundation, 234

Congressional Member Organizations, 167

Congressional Operations, Select Committee on, 54

Congressional Printing, 376–396

Congressional Record, 177, 377, 379, 382–389

Congressional records management, 376–396

Congressional Representatives Election. See Committee on 

the Election of the President, Vice President, and 

Representatives in Congress

Congressional Research Service, 364, 374–376

Congressional Staff Journal, 382

Connecticut

Edward Munster v. Sam Gejdenson, 2nd District of 

Connecticut, 135

Connor, Lanham, 192

Conover, William S., 125

Conservation programs, 258–260

Consultant oversight, 184–185

Contested House elections

A.A. Sammy Rayner, Jr. v. Bennett M. Stewart, 

1st District of Illinois, 130

Albert Dehr v. Robert L. Leggett, 4th District of 

California, 128

Antonio Borja Won Pat v. Ben Blaz, Guam, 133–134

Augusta Wheadon v. Th omas G. Abernethy, 1st

District of Mississippi, 121

Bill McCuen v. Jay Dickey, 4th District of Arkansas, 

134–135

Carlton H. Myers v. William L. Springer, 22nd

District of Illinois, 120

Christine Jennings v. Vern Buchanan, 13th District of 

Florida, 139–140

Cox v. McCrery, 4th District of Louisiana, 138–139

Curtis v. Feeney, 24th District of Florida, 140–141

Dale Alford, 5th District of Arkansas, 119–120

David A. Tunno v. Victor V. Veysey, 38th District of 

California, 125

David J. Wilson v. Walter K. Granger, 1st District of 

Utah, 117

Debra Hanania-Freeman v. Parren J. Mitchell, 7th

District of Maryland, 129–130

Edward C. Pierce v. Carl D. Pursell, 2nd District of 

Michigan, 128

Edward Munster v. Sam Gejdenson, 2nd District of 

Connecticut, 135

Elmo J. Mahoney v. Wint Smith, 6th District of 

Kansas, 120

Elsa Debra Hill and Felix J. Panasigui v. William Clay, 

1st District of Missouri, 128–129

enactment of Federal Contested Election Act of 1969, 

115–117

Fannie Lou Hamer v. Jamie L. Whitten, 2nd District of 

Mississippi, 121

Frank McCloskey v. Richard D. McIntyre, 8th

District of Indiana, 132–133

Frederick M. Roberts v. Helen Gahagan Douglas, 14th

District of California, 117

George D. Stevens v. William W. Blackney, 6th District 

of Michigan, 118

George V. Hansen v. Richard Howard Stallings, 2nd

District of Idaho, 134

Gonzalez v. Diaz-Balart, 21st District of Florida, 140

Hadwen C. Fuller v. John C. Davies, 35th District of 

New York, 118

Harold C. Woodward v. Th omas J. O’Brien, 6th

District of Illinois, 117

Helen D. Mankin v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia, 117

J. Edward Roush v. George O. Chambers, 5th District 

of Indiana, 120–121

J. Patrick Lyons v. Bart Gordon, 6th District of 

Tennessee, 137–138

James A. Frankenberry v. Richard L. Ottinger, 25th

District of New York, 121

James A. Mackay v. Benjamin B. Blackburn, 4th District 

of Georgia, 123–124

James C. Oliver v. Robert Hale, 1st District of Maine, 

119

James F. Th ierry v. Michael A. Feighan, 20th District of 

Ohio, 117

James I. Dolliver v. Merlin Coad, 6th District of Iowa, 

119

James Moreau v. Richard A. Tonry, 1st District of 

Louisiana, 129

Jimmy Wilson v. Anthony Claude Leach, Jr., 4th

District of Louisiana, 130
570 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

JoAnn Saunders v. Richard Kelly, 5th District of 

Florida, 127

Joseph S. Haas, Jr. v. Charles Bass, 2nd District of New 

Hampshire, 135

Lawrence Michael v. Howard W. Smith, 8th District of 

Georgia, 117

Leo K. Th orsness v. Th omas A. Daschle, 1st District of 

South Dakota, 130–131

Maurice S. Osser v. Hardie Scott, 3rd District of 

Pennsylvania, 118–119

Melvin Perkins v. Beverly Byron, 6th District of 

Maryland, 129

Mildred Cosey, Evelyn Nelson, and Allen Johnson v. 

John Bell Williams , 3rd District of Mississippi, 

121–123

Morgan M. Molder, 11th District of Missouri, 120

origins and development, 115

Peter N. Kyros v. Davis F. Emery, 1st District of Maine, 

126

Raymond W. Karst v. Th omas B. Curtis, 12th District 

of Missouri, 118

Robert Anderson v. Charlie Rose, 7th District of North 

Carolina, 135

Robert J. Odegard v. Alec G. Olson, 6th District of 

Minnesota, 121

Robert K. Dornan v. Loretta Sanchez, 46th District of 

California, 135–137

Roderick J. Wilson v. Andrew J. Hinshaw, 40th District 

of California, 126

role of Committee on House Administration, 115–117

Ron Paul v. Bob Gammage, 22nd District of Texas, 

127–128

Roy A. Taylor, 12th District of North Carolina, 120

Roy “Pat” Archer v. Ron Packard, 43rd District of 

California, 131

Russell v. Brown-Waite, 5th District of Florida, 141

Samuel H. Young v. Abner J. Mikva, 10th District of 

Illinois, 125–126, 128

Stephen M. Peterson v. H.R. Gross, 3rd District of 

Iowa, 123

Steve Tataii v. Abercrombie, 1st District of Hawaii, 

141–142

Steve Tataii v. Ed Case, 2nd District of Hawaii, 137

Steven V. Carter v. Karl M. LeCompte, 4th District of 

Iowa, 119

summary of cases, 117–142

Susan M. Brooks v. Jane F. Harman, 36th District of 

California, 135

Victor Wickersham, 6th District of Oklahoma, 120

Vincent L. Browner v. Paul Cunningham, 5th District 

of Iowa, 118

W. Kingsland Macy v. Earnest Greenwood, 1st

District of New York, 118

Walter B. Huber v. William H. Ayres, 14th District of 

Ohio, 118

Wayne Ziebarth v. Virginia Haven Smith, 3rd District 

of Nebraska, 127

William (Bill) Hendon v. James McClure Clarke, 11th

District of North Carolina, 131–132

William (Bill) Mack v. Louis A. Stokes, 21st District of 

Ohio, 126–127

William S. Conover, 27th District of Pennsylvania, 125

Wyman C. Lowe v. Fletcher Th ompson, 5th District of 

Georgia, 124–125

Wyman C. Lowe v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia, 117, 118

Wyman C. Lowe v. W. Wyche Fowler, Jr., 5th District 

of Georgia, 129

Contractors oversight, 184–185

Control Data Corporation, 242

Cook, Th omas, 41

Cooper-Hewitt Museum, 420

Copley, Ira, 238

Cornell, James J., 167

Correspondence Management System, 228, 229

Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, 95–97

Cosey, Mildred, 121–123

Cox, Francis M., 390

CPC. See Capitol Preservation Commission

Crane, James, 349

Credit cards, 203–204

CRM. See Civil Rights Movement

CRT monitors, 242

Cunningham, Paul, 118

Curtis, Carl, 181

Curtis, Th omas, 99, 118

Custis-Lee Mansion, 427

CVC. See Capitol Visitor Center

CyberCongress, 232
INDEX 571

D

Dakar, Mary Rose, 344

Daschle, Th omas A., 130–131

Davenport, Harry J., 67

Davies, John C., 118

Davis, James C., 117, 118

Davis, Susan, 85, 108

Dawes, Henry, 29, 41

Dawson, William Crosby, 33

DC General Post Offi ce Building, 420

De Bausset vacuum airship, 42

“Dear Colleague” letters, 167

Declaration of Independence, Signers of, 430

Dehr, Albert, 128

Delegates, personal staff , 188–189

Democratic Study Group, 285–286

Demonstration preparedness review, 342

Dent, John H., 70, 98, 191, 242

Depository Library Act of 1962, 395

Depository Library Program, 395

Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, 189

Detailee oversight, 184–185

Dewey, Melvil, 374

Dickey, Jay, 134–135

Dining facilities regulation, 52, 53

DISCLOSE Act, 107–108

Disposition of Executive Papers, Committee on, 40

District offi ce space, 195–198

docs.house.gov, 237

Documents distribution, 376–396

Dodd, Christopher, 82, 83

Dolliver, James I., 119

Dornan, Robert K., 135–137

Douglas, Helen Gahagan Douglas, 117

Drummond, Roscoe, 181

DSG. See Democratic Study Group

du Pont, Pierre S., 343

E

E-Congress, 234, 346

EAC. See Election Assistance Commission

Eagen, James M., III, 234, 346–347

Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, 199

Education and Labor Committee, 157–158

Ehlers, Vernon J.

biography, 16

security bills, 347, 349

80th Congress

bills enacted into law, 526

contested election cases, 117

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 51–52

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 451

subcommittees, 484–485

81st Congress

bills enacted into law, 527

contested election cases, 117–118

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 451–452

subcommittees, 485–486

82nd Congress

bills enacted into law, 528

contested election cases, 118–119

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 452

subcommittees, 486–487

83rd Congress

bills enacted into law, 529

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 52

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 453

subcommittees, 487–488

84th Congress

bills enacted into law, 530–531

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 453–454

subcommittees, 488–489

85th Congress

bills enacted into law, 531–532

contested election cases, 119

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 454

subcommittees, 489–491

86th Congress

bills enacted into law, 532–534

contested election cases, 119–120

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 454–455
572 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

subcommittees, 491–492

87th Congress

bills enacted into law, 534–536

contested election cases, 120–121

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 455

subcommittees, 492–494

88th Congress

bills enacted into law, 536–537

contested election cases, 121

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 52

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 455–456

subcommittees, 494–495

89th Congress

bills enacted into law, 537–538

contested election cases, 121–123

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 52

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 456

subcommittees, 496–497

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 70

Elderly persons, voting accessibility for, 75–76

Election Assistance Commission, 58, 81, 83, 85–86

Election laws

Armed Forces voting rights, 68–75

Citizens living abroad voting rights, 70–75

modifi cations since 2000 Presidential election, 72

poll tax, 65–68

renewed push for public fi nancing of congressional 

elections, 99–100

voter registration, 77–87

voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped, 

75–76

Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, Committee on, 43–44

Electioneering communications, 107

Elections, Committee on, 27–30

Elections, contested. See Contested House elections

Elections Canvassing Commission, 139

Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, 

236

Electronic Mail System, 227–228

Electronic voting (House), 237–244

Electronic voting machines, 43

Electronic Voting System, 243–244

Emancipation Hall, 251

Emergency preparedness, 348

Emery, Davis F., 126

Employee Handbook, 24

Employment. See Personnel

Employment Practices Rule, 56

Employment standards, 174–177

EMS. See Electronic Mail System

Energy Policy Act of 1992, 262

English, James, 40

Engraving, Committee on, 36–37

Enrolled Bills, Committee, 37–39

Ericsson, Leif, 430

Ethics

Code of Offi cial Conduct, 212

nepotism resolutions, 173–174

oversight, 212

Ethics Committee. See also Standards of Offi cial Conduct 

Committee

jurisdictional relationship with Committee on House 

Administration, 60

Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 271

Evacuation drills, 348

Evans, Luther H., 365–366

Executive Schedule, 170

Express advocacy, 107

F

Fair Employment Practices, Offi ce of, 55

Fair Employment Practices Resolution, 56

Fair Labor Standards Act, 56

Fairman, Charles E., 274

Faleomavaega, Eni, 279

Family and Medical Leave Act, 177

FAPRS. See Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System

Father Flanagan Memorial, 429

Fazio, Vic, 271

FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCEA. See Federal Contested Election Act of 1969

FDR Memorial, 428

FEC. See Federal Election Commission

FECA. See Federal Election Campaign Act
INDEX 573

Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System, 226

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 341

Federal Contested Election Act of 1969, 52, 115–117, 141–142

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, 95–97

Federal Election Campaign Act, 23, 78, 95, 97–98

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, 98–99

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, 99

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, 100

Federal Election Commission, 23, 77, 86–87, 98, 108

Federal election laws. See Election laws

Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, 338

Federal Flexible Spending Accounts Program, 172

Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964, 170

Federal Library and Information Network Program, 368

Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970, 168, 170

Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1971, 54, 170

Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990, 171

Federal Post Card Application, 72

Federal Record, 385

Federal Salary Act of 1967, 170

Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, 69–70

Federal Voting Assistance Program, 73, 74

FEDLINK. See Federal Library and Information Network 

Program

Feighan, Michael A., 117

Feingold, Russell, 103–105

File Transfer protocol, 231

Financial audits, 220–221

Financial operations oversight, 211–221

Findley, Paul, 339–340

Fine Arts Board, 55, 275–277

Fine arts collection, 416

Fish, Hamilton, 75, 76

Fleet, Jamie, vi

Flores, Y. Marjorie, 157

Florida

Christine Jennings v. Vern Buchanan, 13th District of 

Florida, 139–140

Curtis v. Feeney, 24th District of Florida, 140–141

Gonzalez v. Diaz-Balart, 21st District of Florida, 140

JoAnn Saunders v. Richard Kelly, 5th District of 

Florida, 127

Russell v. Brown-Waite, 5th District of Florida, 141

FOIA. See Freedom of Information Act

Foley, Th omas S., 78–79, 102, 271

Food service

Restaurant (House), Select Committee on the, 52, 53

restaurant system, 252–258

Ford, Gerald R., 71, 80, 99, 152, 183, 367, 392

Ford Reference Center, 375

Foreign terrorist attacks, 343–344

Foreign travel reports, 52, 54

Foster, Stephen Collins, 429

Fowler, W. Wyche, Jr., 129

Foxx, Virginia, 172

FPCA. See Federal Post Card Application

Frankenberry, James A., 121

Frankfurter, Felix, 392

Franking Commission, 55, 57

Franking privilege, 204–211

Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory, 420

Free-coal bill, 38

Freedom of Information Act, 176

Frenzel, Bill, 99, 154, 216

Friedel, Samuel N.

biography, 7

introduction of House Employees Position Classifi cation Act, 190

as Subcommittee chairman, 196–197, 339–340

FTP. See File Transfer protocol

Fuller, Hadwen C., 118

Funding accounts

accountability, 153

cost control eff orts, 153–154

current practice, 150

division of funds between majority and minority 

parties, 156

exemption for Committee on Appropriations, 152–153

funding for controversial committees and chairmen, 

157–158

interim funding, 155

origins and development, 149–150

printed sources on Committee funding, 154–155

procedural evolution and jurisdiction, 150–152

Reserve Fund, 155–156

signifi cance of, 150

subcommittee funding and staffi ng, 156–157

supplemental resolutions, 155–156

transparency, 153

Funeral expenses payments, 162
574 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

G

Gainer, Terrance W., 348

Galloway, George, 29

Gammage, Bob, 127–128

Gandhi, Mohandas K., 430

GAO. See General Accounting Offi ce; Government 

Accountability Offi ce

Garber Facility, 417

Garfi eld, James A., 39, 430–431

Garrett, Finis J., 238

Gejdenson, Sam, 102, 135

Gen. John J. Pershing Memorial, 427

Gen. Robert E. Lee Memorial, 427

General Accounting Offi ce, 56, 267–268, 417

General Services Administration, 165, 197–198, 394

George Mason University, 169

Georgetown Garden Club, 429

Georgia

Helen D. Mankin v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia, 117

James A. Mackay v. Benjamin B. Blackburn, 4th District of Georgia, 123–124

Lawrence Michael v. Howard W. Smith, 8th District of 

Georgia, 117

Wyman C. Lowe v. Fletcher Th ompson, 5th District of 

Georgia, 124–125

Wyman C. Lowe v. James C. Davis, 5th District of 

Georgia, 117, 118

Wyman C. Lowe v. W. Wyche Fowler, Jr., 5th District 

of Georgia, 129

Gessell, Gerhard, 387

GETS. See Government Emergency Telecommunications 

Services

Gibran, Kahlil, 430

Giegengack, Augustus B., 380

Giff ords, Gabrielle, 198, 352–353

Gilbert, Abijah, 39

Gingrey, Phil, 389

Gingrey, Philip, 368–369

Gingrich, Newt

campaign fi nance reform, 104

National Voter Registration Act support, 79

Golding, John, 337

Goodell, Charles, 96

Gopher, 231

Gordon, Bart, 137–138

Government Accountability Offi ce, 139–140, 349

Government Emergency Telecommunications Services, 234

Government Printing Offi ce, 39, 377–385, 389

Government shutdown, 272–273

GPO. See Government Printing Offi ce

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, 367

Grams, Rod, 195

Granger, Walter K., 117

Gratuity payments, 171

Gray, Kenneth J., 343

Greeley, Horace, 34

Green, William, 258

“Green the Capitol” initiative, 259

Gresham, Robert E., 421

Griffi th, Dr. Ernest, 375

Griffi ths, Martha W., 266–267

Gross, H.R., 123, 200

GSA. See General Services Administration

Guam

Antonio Borja Won Pat v. Ben Blaz, Guam, 133–134

Guest Services, 256–257

Guide to Records of the United States House of Representatives 

at the National Archives, 1789–1989: Bicentennial 

Edition, 447

Guidelines for the Consideration of Memorials Under the 

Commemorative Works Act, 430

H

Haas, Joseph S., Jr., 135

Hale, Robert, 67, 119

Halleck, Charles, 180, 182–183

Hamer, Fannie Lou, 121

Hanania-Freeman, Debra, 129–130

Handicapped persons, voting accessibility for, 75–76

Hansen, George V., 134

Hantman, Alan, 249, 347

Harding, Abner, 41

Harman, Jane F., 135

Harper, Gregg, 86–87, 108, 169, 389

Hastert, Dennis, 72

Hatch, Carl, 431

Hatch Act, 59, 430–433

Hatch Act Amendments of 1940, 95
INDEX 575

HAVA. See Help America Vote Act of 2002

Hawaii

Steve Tataii v. Abercrombie, 1st District of Hawaii, 

141–142

Steve Tataii v. Ed Case, 2nd District of Hawaii, 137

Hawkins, Augustus F.

biography, 11

reorganization of House Administration Committee, 

217–218

Hays, Brooks, 66

Hays, Wayne L.

biography, 8

as Committee on House Administration chairman, 

98, 99, 157–158, 185, 242, 254, 287

criticism of nepotism resolutions, 174

resignation as Committee on House Administration 

chairman, 54, 216

Help America Vote Act of 2002, 22–23, 57–58, 72–73, 75, 

80–87

Help America Vote Foundation, 58

Henderson, John, 174

Hendon, William (Bill), 131–132

Henry, Joseph, 412

Hensarling, Jeb, 106

Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, 137

Hill, Elsa Debra, 128–129

Hinshaw, Andrew J., 126

HIR. See House Information Resources

H.I.S. See House Information Systems

Hispanic Americans in Congress, 220

Historical Preservation Commission, 55

HLOGA. See Honest Leadership and Open Government 

Act of 2007

HOBC. See House Offi ce Building Commission

Hoecker, Carl W., 350, 351

Hoff man, Clare, 180, 182, 253

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, 

106

Hoover, Herbert C., 424

House Administration, Committee on

80th Congress responsibilities, 51–52

83rd Congress responsibilities, 52

88th Congress responsibilities, 52

89th Congress responsibilities, 52

91st Congress responsibilities, 52–53

92nd Congress responsibilities, 53

93rd Congress responsibilities, 53

94th Congress responsibilities, 53–54

95th Congress responsibilities, 54

96th Congress responsibilities, 54

97th Congress responsibilities, 54

99th Congress responsibilities, 54

100th Congress responsibilities, 54–55

101st Congress responsibilities, 55

102nd Congress responsibilities, 55–56

103rd Congress responsibilities, 56

104th Congress responsibilities, 56–57

105th Congress responsibilities, 57

106th Congress responsibilities, 57

107th Congress responsibilities, 57–58

108th Congress responsibilities, 58

112th Congress responsibilities, 58–59

bills enacted into law, 526–559

Board of Directors, 177

Chairmen, 1–19, 479–483

Chamber administrative responsibilities, 23–24

committee staff , 178–185

establishment of, 22

funding accounts for members and committees, 

149–158

future goals of, 445

jurisdictional history, 51–59

jurisdictional relationship with other House committees, 

59–60

Members, 451–478

name change, 56, 57

origins and development, 21–22, 51

predecessors of, 27

ranking Members, 479–483

role of, 21, 51

subcommittees, 484–525

voting process review, 65

House Administration Reorganization, Committee on, 

217–218

House barber shop, 264–266

House beauty shop, 266–269

House Building Commission, 52

House Cloud, 236

House elections, contested. See Contested House elections

House emergency preparedness, 348
576 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

House Employees Payroll Simplifi cation Act, 189

House Employees Position Classifi cation Act of 1964, 52, 

189–191

House Ethics Manual, 174

House Fine Arts Board, 55, 275–277

House Information Resources, 232–233, 236

House Information Systems, 53, 224–231, 242–243

House Information Systems Program Plan, 232

House Internal Security Committee, 158

House of Representatives. See also House Administration, 

Committee on

role of, 21

House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 

Corrections Act of 1995, 57, 184

House Offi ce Building Commission, 194

House offi ce buildings

administration and operation, 248–249

art in, 274–280

House Page Board, 54

House Page School, 282, 284

House Pages, 280–285

House parking services, 260–263

House personnel. See Personnel

House Restaurant, Select Committee on the, 52, 53

House Restaurant System, 256–257

House restaurant system, 252–258

House Rule X, 23, 150

House Sergeant at Arms, 57, 219–220, 348

House Un-American Activities Committee, 158

House Wage Schedule, 190

HouseLive.gov website, 237

How Our Laws Are Made, 36

Howard, William, 238

Hoyer, Steny, 81–82, 86

HRS. See House Restaurant System

HSAA. See House Sergeant at Arms

HUAC. See House Un-American Activities Committee

Huber, Walter B., 118

Hungerford, Henry James, 411

Hutchinson, Asa, 103

HWS. See House Wage Schedule

I

Idaho

George V. Hansen v. Richard Howard Stallings, 2nd

District of Idaho, 134

Illinois

A.A. Sammy Rayner, Jr. v. Bennett M. Stewart, 1st

District of Illinois, 130

Carlton H. Myers v. William L. Springer, 22nd District 

of Illinois, 120

Harold C. Woodward v. Th omas J. O’Brien, 6th District of Illinois, 117

Samuel H. Young v. Abner J. Mikva, 10th District of 

Illinois, 125–126, 128

Immigration and Nationality Service, 136–137

Imperial Male Quartet, 45

Indiana

Frank McCloskey v. Richard D. McIntyre, 8th District 

of Indiana, 132–133

J. Edward Roush v. George O. Chambers, 5th District 

of Indiana, 120–121

Informatics Inc., 241–242

Information and Computers, Policy Group on, 227

INS. See Immigration and Nationality Service

Inspector General, 214

Integrated System and Information Service, 230

Internal Revenue Service, 391

Internal Security Committee, 158

International Security Act of 1978, 202

International Security Assistance Act of 1978, 54

Interns, 168–169

Investigative staff , 181

Iowa

James I. Dolliver v. Merlin Coad, 6th District of Iowa, 

119

Stephen M. Peterson v. H.R. Gross, 3rd District of 

Iowa, 123

Steven V. Carter v. Karl M. LeCompte, 4th District of 

Iowa, 119

Vincent L. Browner v. Paul Cunningham, 5th District 

of Iowa, 118

IRS. See Internal Revenue Service

ISIS. See Integrated System and Information Service

Issue advocacy, 107

J

Jackson, Andrew, 362, 411

Jackson, James M., 29

James, Ollie, 35
INDEX 577

James Madison Memorial, 428

Japanese-American Patriotism in World War II Memorial, 

430

JCL. See Joint Committee on the Library

JCOC. See Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress

Jeff erson, Th omas, 362, 430

Jeff erson National Expansion Memorial, 429

Jeff ords, James, 82

Jennings, Christine, 139–140

John W. McCormack Residential Page School, 282

Johnson, Allen, 121–123

Johnson, Andrew, 41

Johnson, David, 34

Johnson, Lyndon B., 70, 96, 168

Johnson, Richard, 34

Joint Committee on Printing, 378–379

Joint Committee on the Library, 361–362

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 21–22, 152

Jones, Walter, 106, 107

JURIS. See Justice Retrieval Inquiry System

Justice Retrieval Inquiry System, 226

K

Kahlil Gibran Memorial, 430

Kansas

Elmo J. Mahoney v. Wint Smith, 6th District of Kansas, 120

Karst, Raymond W., 118

Kefauver, Estes, 244

Keifer, Joseph, 31

Kelly, Melville, 239

Kelly, Richard, 127

Kendall, Ernest, 281

Kennedy, Bert, 281

Kennedy, John F., 96

Kiess Act of 1924, 380

Kiko, Philip, vi

Kilburn, Clarence, 157

King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 342

Kirwan, Michael J., 38

Kluczynski, John, 254

Kofmehl, Kenneth, 181

Korean War Memorial, 427

Kyl, John, 169, 182

Kyros, Peter N., 126

L

Labor Committee. See Education and Labor Committee

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 95

LaFollette, Robert, 21, 374

Langevin, James R., 178

Lanier, Cathy L., 349

LANs. See Local area networks

Larson, John, 177

Laupheimer, David J., 281

Law Enforcement Coordinator Program, 352

Law Enforcement Offi cers Memorial, 430

Law Library, 362–363, 372

LBITE. See Legislative Branch Information Technology 

Exchange

LCS. See Legislative Computer Systems

Leach, Anthony Claude, Jr., 130

Leave policies, 177–178

LeCompte, Karl M.

biography, 3

Committee leadership, 22

contested House election, 119

as House Administration Committee chairman, 339

Lee, Gen. Robert E., 427

LeFevre, Benjamin, 237

Legal Retrieval System, 228

Leggett, Robert L., 128

LEGIS. See Legislative Information and Status System

Legislative Activity Guides, 237

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1948, 59

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1961, 201

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1976, 202

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1994, 179

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for FY1997, 57

Legislative Branch Information Technology Exchange, 233

Legislative Branch Telecommunications group, 233

Legislative Computer Systems, 243

Legislative Information and Status System, 226, 227, 229

Legislative Information Management System, 228

Legislative Information System, 375

Legislative Institutes, 376

Legislative Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations: 

Guidance Issued by the Committee on House 

Administration, 273

Legislative Pay Act of 1929, 170
578 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Legislative records, 447–449

Legislative Reference Bureaus, 364

Legislative Reference Service, 364, 366, 374–375

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 21–22, 38, 43, 51, 

59, 158, 179

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 151, 156, 169, 179, 

183, 215

Legislative Service Organizations, 285–292

Leif Ericsson Memorial, 430

Lenroot, Irvine, 42

Lesinski, John, 253–254

Letters, “Dear Colleague,” 167

Lewis, Elijah, 35

Librarian of Congress Emeritus

Library, Committee on the

jurisdictional highlights, 33

Library of Congress Building construction, 32

role of, 32

Library of Congress

bicentennial, 373

books and music for the blind and other handicapped 

persons, 370

Building, 32

civil rights oral history project, 373–374

distribution of documents overseas, 371

electronic information technologies, 371–372

fi lm preservation program, 372

fi nancial and administrative operations, 366–369

history of the House Representatives, 373

minority hiring and employment, 369

National Conservation Audio-Digital Preservation 

Center, 367

oversight, 361–374

Police, 354

Presidential papers, 372

Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church records, 372

sound recording program, 372

Speaker’s Civic Achievement Awards program, 373

state of our nation’s libraries, 373

Trust Fund, 365, 370

Library of Congress Bicentennial Commemorative Coin 

Act of 1998, 372–373

Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 

2000, 368

Library of Medicine, 423–424

LIM. See Legislative Information Management System

Lincoln, Abraham, 363

Lindsay, George, 42

LIS. See Legislative Information System

Livingood, Wilson, 347

Livingston, Robert, 103

Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, 

106

Local area networks, 228

Lofgren, Zoe, 73–74, 85

Long, Gillis, 245–246

Longworth, Nicholas, 45

Louisiana

Cox v. McCrery, 4th District of Louisiana, 138–139

James Moreau v. Richard A. Tonry, 1st District of 

Louisiana, 129

Jimmy Wilson v. Anthony Claude Leach, Jr., 4th District of Louisiana, 130

Lovell, Dr. Joseph, 424

Lowe, Wyman C., 117, 118, 124–125, 129

LRS. See Legislative Reference Service

LSOs. See Legislative Service Organizations

Lungren, Daniel E.

biography, 19

photo, vi

Lyons, J. Patrick, 137–138

M

Mack, Connie, 398

Mack, William (Bill), 126–127

Mackay, James A., 123–124

MacLeish, Archibald, 365

Macy, W. Kingsland, 118

Madden, Ray, 254

Madison, James, 428

Mahoney, Elmo J., 120

Mail

Electronic Mail System, 227–228

franking privilege, 204–211

mail handling safety, 58

security concerns, 346

voter registration system, 77

Maine

James C. Oliver v. Robert Hale, 1st District of Maine, 119

Peter N. Kyros v. Davis F. Emery, 1st District of Maine, 
INDEX 579

126

Mankin, Helen D., 117

Mao, David, 368

Marchall, Edward Joseph, 171

Marine Band Orchestra, 45

Marine Corps Memorial, 427

Marriott Management Services Corporation, 256, 257

Martin, Lynn, 271

Mary McLeod Bethune Memorial, 429

Maryland

Debra Hanania-Freeman v. Parren J. Mitchell, 7th

District of Maryland, 129–130

Melvin Perkins v. Beverly Byron, 6th District of Maryland, 129

Mason LIFE Program, 169

Mathias Laboratory, 423

Mazanec, Dr. Mary, 368

McCain, John, 103–105

McCain-Feingold bill, 23, 103–105

McCarthy, Charles, 374

McCarthy, Kevin, 74, 86

McClory, Robert T., 222, 241

McCloskey, Frank, 132–133

McConnell, Mitch, 82

McCormack, John, 69, 156, 182, 241, 281

McCuen, Bill, 134–135

McKinley, William, 364

McPherson, L.C., 39

Mechanical offi ce equipment, 221–222

Meehan, John S., 362–363

Meehan, Martin, 103–105

Mellon, Andrew W., 429

Member allowances

Committee’s role in development of, 158–159

communication of rules and regulations, 159

enhancing fl exibility while ensuring accountability, 

159–165

fi rst major consolidation of allowances, 1976-1994, 

159–161

formal constituent communications allowance, 162

funeral expenses payments, 162

offi ce equipment allowance, 163–165

offi ce furnishings guidelines and control, 163–165

origins and development, 158

second major consolidation of allowances, 1995–

present, 161

stationery allowance, 163

telephone allowance, 162–163

types of early allowances, 161–165

Washington, DC living expenses deductions, 162

Member compensation, 269–272

Member Information Network, 226, 228

Members’ Congressional Handbook, 24, 159, 167, 198

Members-Elect, House options in seating, 116–117

Members of the Committee, 451–478

Members’ Private Dining Room, 256

Members’ Representational Allowance, 57, 159, 161, 

187–188, 198

Memorial services, 425–426

Memorials, 424–430

Memorials, Committee on, 44–45

Michael, Lawrence, 117

Michael, W.H., 390

Michel, Bob, 102, 103, 132–133, 271

Michigan

Edward C. Pierce v. Carl D. Pursell, 2nd District of 

Michigan, 128

George D. Stevens v. William W. Blackney, 6th District 

of Michigan, 118

MICROMIN, 228

Mikva, Abner, 387

Mikva, Abner J., 125–126, 128

Mileage, Committee on

assignments to, 35–36

role of, 33–35

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009, 

74–75, 86

Military memorials, 427–428

Military personnel

House employment, 167–168

voting rights, 68–75

Military Voting Protection Act of 2009, 74

Military Voting Rights USA, 74

Millender-McDonald, Juanita

biography, 17

comments on accessibility issues, 178

comments on military voting rights, 73

Milner, King, 171

MIN. See Member Information Network

Minish, Joseph, 283–284
580 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Minnesota

Robert J. Odegard v. Alec G. Olson, 6th District of 

Minnesota, 121

Mission Assurance Bureau, 349–350

Mississippi

Augusta Wheadon v. Th omas G. Abernethy, 1st District of Mississippi, 121

Fannie Lou Hamer v. Jamie L. Whitten, 2nd District of 

Mississippi, 121

Mildred Cosey, Evelyn Nelson, and Allen Johnson v. 

John Bell Williams , 3rd District of Mississippi, 

121–123

Missouri

Elsa Debra Hill and Felix J. Panasigui v. William Clay, 

1st District of Missouri, 128–129

Morgan M. Molder, 11th District of Missouri, 120

Raymond W. Karst v. Th omas B. Curtis, 12th District 

of Missouri, 118

Mitchell, Parren J., 129–130

Mitchell, Robert M., 413

Mohandas K. Gandhi Memorial, 430

Molder, Morgan M., 120

Monroe, James, 337

Monroney, Mike, 21

Montgomery, Dr. James Shera, 45

Monuments, 424–430

Moreau, James, 129

Morrill, Justin, 40

Morse, Phillip D., Sr., 250, 349–352

Motor Voter Act, 22, 78, 79

MOVE Act. See Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009

MRA. See Members’ Representational Allowance

Mumford, L. Quincy, 370

Munster, Edward, 135

Museum of African Art, 419–420

Mutual Security Act of 1954, 52, 200

Myers, Carlton H., 120

N

NASM. See National Air and Space Museum

National Agricultural Library, 423–424

National Air and Space Museum, 417–418

National Archives, 391, 392

National Archives Act of 1934, 40

National Archives and Records Administration, 447

National Armed Forces Museum, 416

National Collection of Fine Arts, 416

National Conservation Audio-Digital Preservation Center, 

367

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002, 72–73

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005, 72–73

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, 74

National Grange Memorial, 429

National Historical Publications Commission, 392

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 86–87

National Law Enforcement Offi cers Memorial, 430

National Library of Education, 424

National Library of Medicine, 423–424

National Mall, 419

National Museum Act, 418–419

National Museum of African American History and Culture, 

373, 421–422

National Museum of African Art, 419–420

National Museum of the American Indian, 420–421

National Museum of the American Latino, 422

National Parks Service, 421

National Portrait Gallery, 416

National Printing Offi ce, 378

National Recording Registry, 372

National Statuary Hall Collection, 252, 277–280

National Voter Registration Act, 22, 77–79

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 79–80, 85

National Zoological Park, 418

Nebraska

Wayne Ziebarth v. Virginia Haven Smith, 3rd District 

of Nebraska, 127

Nedzi, Lucien N.

biography, 10

Nelson, Evelyn, 121–123

Nelson, John, 374

Nepotism, 173–174

New Hampshire

Joseph S. Haas, Jr. v. Charles Bass, 2nd District of New 

Hampshire, 135

New Member Pictorial Directory, 24

New York

Hadwen C. Fuller v. John C. Davies, 35th District of 

New York, 118

James A. Frankenberry v. Richard L. Ottinger, 25th
INDEX 581

District of New York, 121

W. Kingsland Macy v. Earnest Greenwood, 1st District 

of New York, 118

New York Tribune, 34

Newberry v. United States, 95

Ney, Robert W.

biography, 15

campaign fi nance reform, 105

as chairman of House Administration Committee, 

81–82, 177, 346, 347

Ney-Wynn bill, 105

90th Congress

bills enacted into law, 539

contested election cases, 123–125

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 456–457

subcommittees, 497–498

91st Congress

bills enacted into law, 540–541

contested election cases, 125

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 52–53

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 457

subcommittees, 499–500

92nd Congress

bills enacted into law, 541–542

contested election cases, 125

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 53

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 458

subcommittees, 500–501

93rd Congress

bills enacted into law, 543

franking privilege reform, 206

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 53

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 458–459

subcommittees, 502–503

94th Congress

bills enacted into law, 544–545

contested election cases, 125–127

franking privilege reform, 206

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 53–54

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 459

subcommittees, 504–506

95th Congress

bills enacted into law, 545–546

contested election cases, 127–129

franking privilege reform, 206

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 54

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 459–460

subcommittees, 506–508

96th Congress

bills enacted into law, 547–548

contested election cases, 129–131

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 54

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 460

subcommittees, 508–509

97th Congress

bills enacted into law, 548–549

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 54

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 460–461

subcommittees, 510–511

98th Congress

bills enacted into law, 549–550

contested election cases, 131–132

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 461

subcommittees, 512–513

99th Congress

bills enacted into law, 550–551

contested election cases, 132–134

franking privilege reform, 206–207

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 54

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 461

subcommittees, 514–515

NIST. See National Institute of Standards and Technology
582 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Nixon, Richard M., 98, 116, 241, 245, 392–394

NMAAHC. See National Museum of African American 

History and Culture

North Carolina

Robert Anderson v. Charlie Rose, 7th District of North 

Carolina, 135

Roy A. Taylor, 12th District of North Carolina, 120

William (Bill) Hendon v. James McClure Clarke, 11th

District of North Carolina, 131–132

Norton, Mary T.

biography, 4

as member of Committee on Memorials, 45

as Subcommittee on Elections chairwoman, 67

O

Oakar, Mary Rose, 268–269, 344, 354

Obama, Barack, 74, 373

Obey, David R., 53–54, 100–101, 175, 216, 287

Obey Commission, 53, 287

O’Brien, Th omas J., 117

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 175–176

O’Day, Caroline, 44

Odegard, Robert J., 121

OEPPO. See Offi ce of Emergency Planning, Preparedness 

and Operations

Offi ce 2000 initiative, 232

Offi ce buildings

administration and operation, 248–249

art in, 274–280

Offi ce equipment

allowance, 163

fl exibility in acquisition of, 164

liabilities for missing equipment, 165

mechanical, 221–222

offi ce furnishings guidelines and control, 165

standardization, limitation, and control of, 163–164

Offi ce of Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Operations, 220

Offi ce of the Surgeon General, 424

Offi ce space, 194–198

Offi ce Waste Recycling Pilot Program, 259

Offi cers oversight, 212–214

Offi cial Expenses Allowance, 160

Offi cial Register of the United States, 382

Offi cial reporters, 191–193

Offi cial travel, 198–204

Ohio

James F. Th ierry v. Michael A. Feighan, 20th District of 

Ohio, 117

Walter B. Huber v. William H. Ayres, 14th District of 

Ohio, 118

William (Bill) Mack v. Louis A. Stokes, 21st District of 

Ohio, 126–127

Oklahoma

Victor Wickersham, 6th District of Oklahoma, 120

Oliver, James C., 119

Olson, Alec G., 121

O’Malley, Th omas, 36

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act for FY1999, 249

100th Congress

bills enacted into law, 551–552

franking privilege reform, 207

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 54–55

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 462

subcommittees, 516–517

101st Congress

bills enacted into law, 552–554

franking privilege reform, 207

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 55

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 462

National Voter Registration reform proposals, 78–79

subcommittees, 517–518

102nd Congress

bills enacted into law, 554–555

franking privilege reform, 207–208

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 55–56

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 462–463

National Voter Registration reform proposals, 79

subcommittees, 519–520

103rd Congress

bills enacted into law, 555–556

contested election cases, 134–135

franking privilege reform, 207–208
INDEX 583

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 56

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 463

subcommittees, 520–521

104th Congress

bills enacted into law, 556–557

contested election cases, 135

franking privilege reform, 208–209

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 56–57

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 463

subcommittees, 522

105th Congress

bills enacted into law, 557

contested election cases, 135–137

franking privilege reform, 209

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 57

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 464

subcommittees, 522

106th Congress

bills enacted into law, 558

franking privilege reform, 209

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 57

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 464

subcommittees, 522

107th Congress

bills enacted into law, 559

franking privilege reform, 209–210

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 57–58

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 464

subcommittees, 523

108th Congress

bills enacted into law, 559–560

contested election cases, 137–138

franking privilege reform, 210

Help America Vote Act amendment proposals, 83–84

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 58

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 464

subcommittees, 523

109th Congress

bills enacted into law, 560–561

contested election cases, 138

franking privilege reform, 210

Help America Vote Act amendment proposals, 84

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 465

subcommittees, 523

110th Congress

bills enacted into law, 561–562

contested election cases, 138–141

franking privilege reform, 210

Help America Vote Act amendment proposals, 84–85

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 465

subcommittees, 524

111th Congress

bills enacted into law, 562

contested election cases, 141–142

franking privilege reform, 210

Help America Vote Act amendment proposals, 85–86

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 465

subcommittees, 524–525

112th Congress

bills enacted into law, 563

franking privilege reform, 210

Help America Vote Act amendment proposals, 86–87

jurisdictional responsibility of Committee on House 

Administration, 58–59

listing of Members of the Committee on House 

Administration, 465

subcommittees, 525

113th Congress

franking privilege reform, 210–211

O’Neill, Th omas P. (Tip), 99, 245–246, 283

OSG. See Offi ce of the Surgeon General

OSHA. See Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Osser, Maurice S., 118–119

Ottinger, Richard L., 121

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, 70–71
584 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 Amendments, 

71

Overseas travel, 199–203

Owen, Robert Dale, 411

P

Packard, Ron, 130–131

PACs. See Political Action Committees

Pages, House, 280–285

Palestine Liberation Front, 343–344

Pallante, Maria, 368

Panama Canal Treaty, 245

Panasigui, Felix J., 128–129

Panetta, Leon E., 132, 175, 268

Parking regulation, 52

Parking services, 260–263

Parks Service, National, 421

Patman, Wright, 157

Paul, Ron, 127–128

Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage 

Facility, 417

Pay ceilings, 170

Payroll system, 171–172. See also Wages

PBX. See Private branch exchange telephone system

PDF. See Palestine Liberation Front

PDN. See Public Data Network

Pelosi, Nancy, 161, 285

Pendleton Civil Service Act, 431

Pennsylvania

Maurice S. Osser v. Hardie Scott, 3rd District of Pennsylvania, 118–119

William S. Conover, 27th District of Pennsylvania, 125

Pepper, Claude, 244

Perkins, Melvin, 129

Pershing, Gen. John J., 427

Personal staff

for delegates, 188–189

funding, 185–187

Members’ Representational Allowance, 187–188

for Resident Commissioner, 188–189

size allowed for Members, 185–187

Personally identifi able information, 350

Personnel

accessibility, 178

Appropriations Committee responsibilities, 166–167

associate staff , 167

Board of Directors rules and rulemaking, 177

committee staff , 178–185

division of salaries, 172–173

employment policies and procedures, 166–178

employment standards, 174–177

gratuity payments, 171

handbooks, 167

House Employees Position Classifi cation Act, 189–191

interns, 168–169

leave policies, 177–178

nepotism, 173–174

offi cial reporters, 191–193

origins and development of policies, 165

oversight of payroll system and guidelines, 171–172

pay ceilings, 170

performance of duties, 172–173

personal staff , 185–189

policies, 177–178

salary, basic vs. gross, 169–170

salary adjustments, 170–171

shared staff , 167

subletting of duties, 172–173

telecommuting, 178

veterans and military liaison benefi ts, 167–168

Petersen, Douglas (Pete), 278

Peterson, Stephen M., 123

Philippine Insurrection Memorial, 427

Pickering, Charles, 396

Pictures. See Committee on the Library

Pierce, Edward C., 128

PII. See Personally identifi able information

Police

Capitol, 57, 249, 337–354

Library of Congress, 354

Smithsonian, 416

Policy advisors, 214

Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development, 227

Policy Group on Information and Computers, 227

Political Action Committees, 97, 100–103

Polk, James K., 411

Poll tax

Committee on House Administration role, 66–68

origins and development, 65–66

Polygamy, 29, 43
INDEX 585

Poor People’s Campaign, 342

Poore, Ben Perley, 389–390

Portrait gallery, 416

Post Offi ce and Civil Service Committee, 59

Postage

franking privilege, 204–211

Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 174

Postcard voter registration system, 77

Postmaster General reports, 55

Powell, Adam Clayton, 157–158, 185

Powell, James M., 340–341

Power Plant, 260

Preloh, Mike, 262

Presidential Election. See Election of the President, Vice 

President, and Representatives in Congress, Committee on

Presidential memorials, 428–429

Presidential papers, 372

Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, 

393–394

Presidential records, 394

Price, Charles, 241

Price Waterhouse LLP, 220–221

Printing, 376–396

Printing, Committee on, 36–37

Printing Act of 1819, 378

Printing Act of 1895, 377, 379

Privacy Act, 176

Private branch exchange telephone system, 229

Public Data Network, 229

Public Documents Committee, 392

Publicity Act Amendments, 95

Publicity Act of 1910, 95

Pursell, Carl D., 128

Putnam , Herbert, 363–365, 374

R

Radio Modernization Project, 353

Railsback, Th omas, 101

Ranking Members of the Committee, 479–483

Rayburn, Sam, 244

Rayburn Carryout, 256

Rayner, A.A. Sammy, Jr., 130

Reagan, Ronald, 72, 76

Records, legislative, 447–449

Records management, 376–396

Recycling programs, 258–260

Reed, Th omas Brackett, 29

Reed Rules, 29

Regethermic Food System, 256

Regional Printing and Procurement Offi ces, 383

Register of Debates, 377

Regulations and Accounting Procedures for Allowances and 

Expenses of Committees, Members, and Employees, 167

Renewable resources programs, 259

Reporters, offi cial, 191–193

Representatives in Congress Election. See Election of the 

President, Vice President, and Representatives in 

Congress, Committee on

Request for proposal, 247, 257

Resident Commissioner, personal staff for, 188–189

Restaurant Associates, 257, 258

Restaurant (House), Select Committee on the, 52, 53

Restaurant system, 252–258

Revised Statutes, 337

RFP. See Request for proposal

Rittenhouse, Sara Louisa, 429

Roberts, Brigham H., 35

Roberts, Frederick M. Roberts, 117

Roberts, Pat, 183, 290–291

Robo calls, 106

Roof, Philip L., 171

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 365, 428, 431

Roosevelt, Th eodore, 38, 428, 431

Rose, Charles G., III

biography, 13

as member of Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee on 

Broadcasting, 245–246

Rose, Charlie, 135, 290

Rotunda, 248–249

Rouse, Terrie, 250

Roush, J. Edward, 120–121

RPPO. See Regional Printing and Procurement Offi ces

Rules Committee

jurisdictional relationship with Committee on House 

Administration, 59–60

role of, 31

Rules of the House of Representatives, 158

S
586 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Salaries

adjustments, 170–171

basic vs. gross, 169–170

division of salaries, 171–172

gratuity payments, 171

House Wage Schedule, 190

Member compensation, 269–272

oversight of payroll system and guidelines, 171–172

pay ceilings, 170

Sampson, Arthur F., 392–393

Sanchez, Loretta, 135–137

Sara Louisa Rittenhouse Memorial, 429

Saund, Dalip, 278

Saunders, JoAnn, 127

SBV. See Smithsonian Business Ventures

Schenck, Paul, 152, 181–183

Schiff , Adam, 106

Schureman, James, 27

Schwengel, Fred, 183, 241

SCORPIO, 226

Scott, Hardie, 118–119

Scott, Th omas, 27

Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance, 174, 196

Security

Capitol Police, 57, 249, 337–354

House wing of the Capitol, 249

Library of Congress Police, 354

Security systems, 343

Select Committee on Committees, 215–216

Select Committee staffi ng, 184

Senior Management Expansion/Reorganization Plan, 

219–220

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

regulations, 58

response of House Administrative Committee, 

345–347

technology updates in response to, 233–236

Sergeant at Arms, 214

Service America Corporation, 256, 257

Servicemen’s Voting Act Amendments of 1950, 69

Services

barber shop, 264–266

beauty shop, 266–269

Capitol Visitor Center, 248–252

House wing of the Capitol, 248–249

offi ce buildings, 248–249

parking, 260–263

recycling and sustainability, 258–260

restaurant system, 252–258

Shaff er, Roberta, 368

Shared staff , 167

Shays, Christopher, 103–105, 176

Shays-Meehan bill, 103–105

Shell, George Washington, 40, 41

Sherman, John, 39

Showtime Networks Inc., 414

Shutdown, Government, 272–273

Signers of the Declaration of Independence Memorial, 430

Sikorski, Gerry, 369

Simon, Samuel, 36

Simon Bolivar Memorial, 430

Skinner, Harry, 43

Slave Labor Task Force, 251

Small, Lawrence M., 414

Smith, Charles B., 29

Smith, Howard W., 60, 117, 150–151

Smith, Neal, 174

Smith, Virginia Haven, 127

Smith, Wint, 120

Smithers, Nathaniel, 40

Smithson, James, 411–412, 420

Smithsonian Board of Regents, 415

Smithsonian Business Ventures, 413

Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Enhancement 

Act, 423

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 423

Smithsonian Institution, 373–374, 411–423

Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act of 

2008, 423

Snell, Bertrand, 35

Soldier Voting Act of 1942, 68

SOPAD. See Summary of Proceedings and Debates

Souder, Steve, 349

South Dakota

Leo K. Th orsness v. Th omas A. Daschle, 1st District of 

South Dakota, 130–131

Southwick, George, 31

Spanish-American War Memorial, 427

Speaker’s Civic Achievement Awards program, 373

Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized 
INDEX 587

To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain 

Other Propaganda Activities, 158

Spelman, Lucy H., 418

Spoff ord, Ainsworth Rand, 363–364

Springer, William L., 120

Staff . See Committee staff ; Personal staff

Staffi ng committees, 149–158

Stallings, Richard Howard, 134

Standards of Offi cial Conduct Committee, 52, 58, 60. See

also Ethics Committee

Stanley, Th omas B., 5

Stars and Stripes, 384

Statement of Disbursements of the House, 161

Stationery allowance, 163

Statuary. See also Committee on the Library

National Statuary Hall Collection, 252, 277–280

Stennis, John, 66

Stephen Collins Foster Memorial, 429

Stephenson, John G., 363

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, 417

Stevens, George D., 118

Stevens, Th addeus, 41

Stevens, Tom, 250

Stevenson, Andrew, 252

Stewart, Bennett M., 130

Stockman, David, 246

Stokes, Louis A., 126–127

Student congressional interns, 168–169

Subcommittee on Capitol Security, 348–349

Subcommittee staffi ng, 184

Subcommittees, 484–525

Summary of Proceedings and Debates, 226

Sumner, Charles, 39

Sustainability programs, 258–260

Swift, Allan B., 71, 75, 78, 79, 101

Swinburne, John, 42

Synar, Michael, 103

T

Task Force on Telephone Confi guration, 228

Tataii, Steve, 137, 141–142

Taylor, Roy A., 120

Technology

computerization, 222–237

electronic voting in the House, 237–244

mechanical equipment, 221–222

televised fl oor debate, 244–247

video records of proceedings, 247–248

Technology Development, Policy Coordination Group for, 

227

Telecommuting, 178

Telephone allowances, 162–163

Telephone Confi guration, Task Force on, 228

Telephone system, private branch exchange, 229

Televised fl oor debate, 244–247

Telnet, 231

Tennessee

J. Patrick Lyons v. Bart Gordon, 6th District of Tennessee, 137–138

Terrorism

foreign attacks, 1985-1986, 343–344

September 11, 2001 attacks, 58, 233–236, 345–347

Texas

Ron Paul v. Bob Gammage, 22nd District of Texas, 

127–128

Th e Committee on House Administration: Policies, Precedents 

and Procedures Including Related Statistical Information, January 1947–January 1666, 167

Th eodore Roosevelt Memorial, 428

Th ierry, James F., 117

THOMAS, 232, 375

Th omas, William M.

biography, 14

campaign fi nance reform, 101, 102, 103, 104

as House Oversight Committee chairman, 136–137, 

177, 291, 354, 367, 373

National Voter Registration Act support, 79

Th ompson, Fletcher, 124–125

Th ompson, Frank, Jr.

biography, 9

as Committee on House Administration chairman, 

54, 99–101

Th ompson Hospitality Services, 256, 257

Th orsness, Leo K., 130–131

Tillman Act, 95

Tonry, Richard A., 129

Tours, 250–251

Trandahl, Jeff , 347

Travel, offi cial, 198–204

Travel, overseas, 199–203
588 A HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE ADMINISTR ATION, 1947–2008

Travel agents, 203–204

Trimble, Vance, 174, 196

Truman, Harry S., 69, 365, 432

Tunno, David A., 125

Twenty-Fourth Amendment, 22

TYMNET, 228

U

Udall, Morris, 99–100

Un-American Activities Committee, 158

Uniform Resource Locators, 389–390

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 

1986, 71–74, 86

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act, 177

UNINET ACCESS, 228

Uninterruptible Power Supply, 228

United States Botanic Gardens, 347, 396–398

United States Capitol Historical Preservation Commission, 55

United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2008, 349–350

United States House of Representatives. See House Administration, Committee on

United States Marine Corps Memorial, 427

Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, 84, 85

Universal Voter Registration Act, 77–78

Unoffi cial Member caucuses, 285–292

UOCAVA. See Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act of 1986

UPS. See Uninterruptible Power Supply

URLs. See Uniform Resource Locators

U.S. Capitol Police, 57, 249, 337–354

U.S. Census Bureau, 77

USBG. See United States Botanic Gardens

USCP. See U.S. Capitol Police

UseNet, 231

USERRA. See Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act

Utah

David J. Wilson v. Walter K. Granger, 1st District of 

Utah, 117

V

Van Buren, Martin, 411

Van Hollen, Chris, 107

Vander Jagt, Guy, 102

Ventilation and Acoustics, Committee on, 40–43

VEOA. See Veterans Employment Opportunities Act

Veterans

House employment, 167–168

Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, 177

Veysey, Victor V., 125

Vice Presidential Election. See Election of the President, 

Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, 

Committee on

Video records of proceedings, 247–248

Vietnam Women’s Memorial, 428

Virtual private network, 233

Visitor Center, 248–252, 348–352

Visitors Services, 250–251

Voter Confi dence and Increased Accountability Act of 

2007, 84

Voter Participation Act of 1989, 78

Voter Registration Administration, 77

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 

22, 76

Voting (House), electronic, 237–244

Voting machines, 43

Voting rights

Armed Forces, 68–75

citizens living abroad, 70–75

Help America Vote Act of 2002, 80–87

modifi cations since 2000 Presidential election, 72

poll tax and, 65–68

voter registration, 77–80

voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped, 

75–76

Voting Rights Act, 75, 77, 78

Vouchers, travel, 203–204

VPN. See Virtual private network

W

Wachter, Frank C., 38

Wadsworth, James W., 21–22

Wages

division of salaries, 171–172

gratuity payments, 171

House Wage Schedule, 190

Member compensation, 269–272

oversight of payroll system and guidelines, 171–172
INDEX 589

pay ceilings, 170

salary, basic vs. gross, 169–170

salary adjustments, 170–171

Waggonner, Joe, Jr., 191, 193

WAIS. See Wide Area Information Server

Walgren, Douglas, 75

Walsh, Allan, 238–239

War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, 95

Washington, DC living expenses, 162

Waste-to-Energy program, 260

Watterston, George, 362

Wayne, Anthony, 28

Ways and Means. See Committee on Accounts

Wendell, Cornelius, 379

Wheadon, Augusta, 121

White, George M., 398

Whitten, Jamie L., 121

Wickersham, Victor, 120

Wide Area Information Server, 231

Wilkes, Charles, 396

William Jennings Bryan Memorial, 429

Williams, John Bell, 121–123

Williamson, R.B., 41

Wilson, David J., 117

Wilson, Jimmy, 130

Wilson, Roderick J., 126

Wilson, Woodrow, 428–429

Wishart, General Leonard P., 259

Women in Congress, 1917-2006, 220

Women in the Armed Forces Memorial, 428

Won Pat, Antonio Borja, 133–134

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 419

Woodrow Wilson Memorial, 428–429

Woodward, Harold C., 117

Worklife Services Center, 369

Works of art. See Committee on the Library

World War II

Armed Forces voting rights, 68–75

Japanese-American Patriotism Memorial, 430

Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program, 168

Wright, James, 102, 132, 154, 191–192, 283

Wynn, Albert, 105

X

X.400 Messaging, 229–230

Y

Yates, Frank, 180

Yell, Archibald, 33

Young, John R., 364

Young, Samuel H., 125–126, 128

Younger, Jesse Arthur, 189

Z

Ziebarth, Wayne, 127

Zoo, National, 418