[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 11, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-250 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Professional Staff
S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director
COMMITTEE FUNDING HEARING FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS (CONT.)
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Gonzalez, Lungren,
and Harper.
Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Jamie Fleet,
Deputy Staff Director; Charles Howell, Chief Counsel; Matt
Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Brian
McCue, Professional Staff; Gregory Abbot, Policy Analyst;
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; Peter Schalestock,
Minority Counsel; and Karin Moore, Minority Legislative
Counsel.
The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
Administration to order.
And I would also like to welcome you back to round two of
our committee funding hearings. Today we will hear from our
colleagues on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means Committee,
and the Rules Committee. This afternoon, we will follow the
exact format as we had in the hearings last week, and hopefully
we will be out of here relatively quickly.
I would like to recognize my friend and ranking member, Mr.
Lungren, for any opening remarks or statements.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thought that the first day of hearings went well. I
presume this will as well. And I thank you for the spirit of
cooperation and bipartisanship. We have approached this and the
commitment to the one-third/two-thirds in terms of funding.
And I, too, hope that this will be an expeditious
proceeding today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to welcome Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member
Barton, and ask you to join us up on the table.
And I am also now willingly going to relinquish my Chair to
Mr. Gonzalez, who is a member of your committee, and I hope it
is worthwhile, and I hope he gets even with you for how you
have been treating him over the last couple of years.
I would give the Chair to Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to welcome the esteemed
chairman and ranking member of Energy and Commerce, on which I
have the great privilege of serving, and just have such great
admiration for both Mr. Waxman and Mr. Barton, my fellow Texan.
I believe that the chairman and the ranking member will be
given 5 minutes to make their presentation, and then, of
course, if we have any questions, follow up, and more
information.
So, with that, I would recognize Henry Waxman, who is the
Chairman of Energy and Commerce.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, and
my fellow Californian.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce's budget proposal for the
111th Congress. And I am pleased to be here with the ranking
member of our committee, Mr. Barton.
During his tenure as chairman of the committee, Mr. Barton
provided the minority with one-third of the committee
resources, an approach that Mr. Dingell followed in the last
Congress. And as the new Chair of the committee, I also intend
to continue this approach to allocating resources for the
minority.
As we begin the 111th Congress the Energy and Commerce
Committee faces a tremendous work load. Three of the top
priorities of the new Obama administration and the American
public are in the jurisdiction of our committee: health care
reform; climate change legislation; and energy independence.
While each of these issues alone requires significant attention
and resources, the committee will be undertaking them
simultaneously.
Beyond these key matters, the committee will also be
looking at food-safety reform; comprehensive FDA reform;
tobacco legislation; telecommunications reforms; chemical
security; cyber security; generic drug reform; as well as the
reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act, National
Highway Transportation Safety Act, and the Federal Trade
Commission.
We have already been working at a fast pace. In this first
few weeks of this Congress, the committee completed a marathon
markup of the economic recovery bill; played a lead role in
enactment of legislation to expand comprehensive health care
for millions of children; and spearheaded the development of
legislation to postpone the transition to digital television
until June 12th, 2009.
We also launched what will be a series of hearings to
examine issues relating to climate change policy and to conduct
an oversight hearing to examine food-safety issues raised by
the recent outbreak of salmonella in peanut products.
To accomplish our agenda, the Committee needs to add new
staff, including a senior Medicare expert, a senior motor
vehicles expert, a staff member to represent the chairman
emeritus, and additional staff for the subcommittees that will
play leading roles in advancing legislation. The committee has
also encouraged transition costs resulting from a change in the
committee chairmanship. These costs include compensating policy
and administrative staff serving the committee on a
transitional basis.
As a result, the committee is requesting an 11.4 percent
increase in funding for 2009 over 2008. Of this amount, 4.7
percent is for cost-of-living increases for staff salaries and
inflation increases for equipment, supplies, and other
expenses. The remaining 6.7 percent is necessary for the
committee to meet its increased work load.
In its proposed budget for 2010, the committee is
requesting a 10 percent increase over the proposed 2009 budget.
This increase reflects equipment purchases that will promote
efficiency by updating the committee computer system and
telecommuting capabilities that will allow us to help close a
large pay gap between our staff salaries and comparable
salaries in the executive branch.
We are trying to be as economical as possible in this
budget request. The committee is not requesting any increase in
funding for travel or equipment from the 110th Congress budget.
But to enable the committee to fulfill its legislative and
oversight responsibilities, we will need more resources.
Once again, I would like to thank you for this opportunity
to testify before the committee. I hope you will look favorably
upon our request, and we look forward to working with you in
the 111th Congress.
[The statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Ranking Member, Mr. Barton from the great State of
Texas.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren, and Mr. Harper.
I would add one item to Chairman Waxman's agenda. That is
the reauthorization of the National Institute of Health. It is
currently operating under a 3-year authorization which expires
this year, and I would hope that our chairman would put that on
his agenda, too, since we substantially increased the budget at
NIH in the stimulus package that passed last week.
I can go one of three ways on this year's budget request
for the Energy and Commerce Committee: I could support a budget
freeze in which we make do with the same resources we had last
year, which in the case of the Republican budget for the
committee would be $3.4 million; I could support an adjustment
for inflation, which my staff tells me is 1.8 percent; or given
the increased work load in the agenda that Chairman Waxman has
just outlined, I could support a slightly larger increase in
the pure inflationary adjustment of 1.8 percent so long as that
increase, the minority gets one-third of the resources, which
Chairman Waxman has just indicated he supports and which, in
your opening statements, the chairman and ranking member of
this committee said that they support also.
What I cannot do, with all due respect, is support the
entire increase that Chairman Waxman has just outlined of 11.4
percent this year and 10 percent next year. My math says that
is a 21.4 percent increase. Given the shape our economy is in,
I don't think that Congress could hold its head up with that
kind of an increase.
Having said that, I understand a new chairman's need for
setting an aggressive agenda, and I respect Chairman Waxman for
his willingness to have a proactive committee. Hopefully, we
can be as proactive with less money and be more effective in
doing that.
With that, I would yield back.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
And the Chair is going to recognize himself for the first
question.
That is, Mr. Waxman, obviously the legislative branch and
the House of Representatives has its agenda. But last night, we
did listen to the President. And, if I recall, he highlighted
basically three areas that he will be concentrating on, and I
think you pointed that out: health, energy, and education.
Health and energy will be primarily in the jurisdiction of your
committee, is that correct?
Mr. Waxman. That is right.
Mr. Gonzalez. So even if Congress didn't have that focus,
even if Congress wasn't going to expend all its attention on
two out of those three, it's coming, and it's coming from the
White House, and it will end up in your committee.
Mr. Waxman. That is correct, and he also mentioned he wants
us to deal with the carbon emissions problem, global warming,
climate change. We are working on all three of those issues.
They are very high priorities for this administration. And we
are working on them at the same time, so we need the resources
to do our job.
Mr. Gonzalez. You also indicated that some of the
additional costs in the new budget could be attributed to
transition costs. If you can try to explain that a little bit
to the members of the committee, and further, is there a
component for deferred equipment purchases?
Mr. Waxman. We had the transition costs because I am a new
chairman, and having come from the House Oversight Committee,
some of our staff will be moving over. They have stayed on the
payroll of the House Oversight Committee. Some of the people on
the Energy and Commerce Committee we are going to keep. But
those who are going to leave, we didn't want to drop them from
the payroll on January 1. We didn't think that was a fair thing
to do. So we do have those transition costs.
I think that the equipment issue is one that we need to
work on, and we are trying to hold down the cost, but we have
to be able to have the ability to do the telecommuting and all
of the technical things that make a committee viable and
efficient.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. I am sorry?
Mr. Gonzalez. If you have any remarks based on the
questions that I posed to Chairman Waxman on the agenda being
driven pretty much by the White House, and it will be visiting
us, whether we would welcome it or not. And most of it falls
within the jurisdiction of the committee, and further
transition costs and what might be deferred equipment
purchases.
Mr. Barton. Well, I would acknowledge that on the majority
side, there are transition costs. And I certainly commend
Chairman Waxman for trying to alleviate some of the suffering
of the staff relocation. I think that is a positive thing.
My comment on the agenda, though, is, I am going to quote
something that Ginger Rogers said when somebody asked her to
comment on Fred Astaire as a dance partner and how accomplished
he was. Her retort was, I do everything he does except
backwards in high heels. Well, the minority does everything the
majority does, except we do it with a third of the staff and on
most days less notice because of the way the system works. So
whatever the agenda is, we will do our best to respond to Mr.
Waxman and President Obama, but we will do it backwards in high
heels and try to be just as good.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gonzalez. Sure. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I want to add to your question about the
equipment budget. We are asking for no increase in the
equipment budget for 2009. We will for 2010 because we will
need an update on the equipment by then. But we are not asking
for an increase for this year.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
And the Chair is going to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much.
Obviously, we are dealing with a 2-year request here for
the next Congress. And one of the reasons I bring that up is
that we have asked the other chairmen and ranking members
whether they would actively work with us in coming back after
the first year so we can review where we are after a year.
These are a significant increase in requests that have been
made and probably will ultimately result, and in a matter of
just fiscal prudence, it just seems to be a good idea to have
committees come back to us, we look at what happened with the
requests that were made and where we are going into the next
year.
Could we have that commitment of cooperation from both of
you?
Mr. Waxman. Well, certainly we want to cooperate with the
committee and do whatever you think is necessary to make sure
that we both do our jobs.
Mr. Lungren. Sure.
I notice, in all the requests that we have, the largest
single budgets of all the committees in the Congress are,
first, Energy and Commerce; the combined request for the 111th
Congress would be just shy of $25 million. And the second
largest is Oversight and Government Reform at just shy of $24
million.
And the math that we have, Mr. Barton, shows that the 2-
year request over the previous 2-year request amounts to about
an 18.7 percent increase. That is one of the largest increases
of anybody that has come before us.
And I guess the question is, Mr. Waxman, could you do what
you have to do with less?
Mr. Waxman. I think we would be unable to do the things
that we need to do with all these major issues simultaneously
being considered by our committee. So I think our work product
would be adversely affected. These are the kinds of issues that
we need to do right, not just do a job on and get a bill out.
We have got to try to get, hopefully, a bipartisan consensus;
make sure the policy makes sense; and we need to have the
experts who can help us accomplish those goals.
Mr. Lungren. If I could forecast that there would be a
bipartisan consensus, I would give you this money and more. I
would hope we might be able to get a bipartisan consensus on
this.
All right, it is just tough for us in this environment. I
mean, I believe that the Congress of the United States has an
obligation to be the oversight people over the executive
branch. And I have been one of those who has criticized both
the Democrat and Republican Congresses for not doing the job.
So I would be derelict in my duty if I suggested that you
ought not to do oversight. It is just the question I have got
to ask is whether an 18.7 percent increase in the current
economic environment; while the President did outline all those
things he said last night, I do recall him telling us that we
are not supposed to put a debt on our children or
grandchildren. I am old enough, as you know, Mr. Waxman, to
have grandchildren now, and it has become a reality to me.
I loved what the President had to say. I just hope that his
rhetoric matches up to his actions, and I hope our actions
match up to that rhetoric. We are going to have to answer to
our constituents about the budgets that we have, and 18.7
percent is quite a bit more than inflation or anything like
that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
The Chair will recognize the chairman, Mr. Brady, for any
questions.
The Chairman. No questions.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman, how are you?
It is an honor to get to see both of you here.
And I have a couple of questions. Listening to the
President's speech last night, if he said it, I apologize, I
missed it, but was there anything about nuclear energy? I don't
remember it discussed in his speech last night. Is that
something that you are pursuing favorably as a committee or
discounting?
Mr. Waxman. As we look at our energy needs, especially the
goal of becoming more independent from importing our energy
from places that do not wish us well, I think we have to look
at a whole portfolio of sources. And I cannot imagine that we
are going to meet our energy needs in this country without
nuclear energy. So I see that as part of the overall sources to
deal with our growing needs in this country, and especially as
we want to be more independent.
Mr. Harper. One of the other things that the President
discussed, Mr. Chairman, was that we are importing a record
level of oil from foreign countries and also that we are paying
a price for our dependence upon oil. If those are concerns, are
we moving as a committee, or do you anticipate moving as a
committee, towards additional exploration to recover our own
natural resources, whether it be at ANWR, or additional
drilling for natural gas offshore? Are those things we are just
abandoning, or are we going to pursue those so that that is a
method as we pursue these other ideas to decrease that
dependence upon foreign oil?
Mr. Waxman. The question of drilling at ANWR or offshore is
not really within our committee's jurisdiction; it is not the
Natural Resources Committee. But what we need to do, in my
view, is to provide the incentives to look for alternative
energy sources, to use our energy resources that we have more
efficiently, and try to put in place the incentives for the
private sector to develop that new technology, some of which we
have and some of which we are close to getting, so that we can
become more energy independent. It is a national security
issue.
We need to provide more jobs. That will be, I think,
promoted. And then we need to deal with the carbon emissions
that are causing the threats of global warming, which may be
the biggest environmental challenge that any of us have ever
imagined.
Mr. Harper. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know though that in my
district, in my State, I don't think that the small businesses
and the students and people that are of modest means or seniors
can endure another $4-a-gallon gas price problem. So it may
take years as we develop alternative means of energy and
sources. And if we don't explore those further to get the
fossil fuel that is available as a bridge even, then we are
really hurting our small businesses. So I would hope that that
would be something that we would look at.
And one last comment I would have, Mr. Chairman, is that I
know that, as the President stated, as your committee stated,
as you look at global warming issues, and we tried to look at
less spending or not growing at this rate, is it possible to
shift any of the global warming work that your committee might
be required to do to the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming? I know they don't do
legislative work, I understand, but is there not stuff that
could be shifted to them that you can draw from that reduces
the need for additional employees?
Mr. Waxman. Well, we want to learn from their series of
hearings and any reports that they produce as a result of it.
We are going to be talking closely to them. But we, as a
legislative committee, have to be the ones on top of the issue.
We are going to learn from the private sector, the public
sector; or anyone who has views, we want to take them into
consideration. But we ultimately have to decide the
legislation.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lungren. Will the gentleman yield?
On your time, would you mind if I asked Mr. Barton a
question?
Mr. Barton, you suggested three scenarios that you could
support. Could you give us some guidance as to where you think
we ought to end up in terms of an increase above just simple
inflation?
Mr. Barton. Well, again, I understand Chairman Waxman's
desire to beef up the staff, and that is understandable as a
new chairman.
But my guess is, we will get just as much work done whether
we have any increase at all, knowing how aggressive and
effective Mr. Waxman is. So if he wants a few more staff
members, I respect that. We have already established that, if
he gets two, I get one. And so my job will be to make sure my
one can do what his two do.
I don't know what the other committees are asking, but I
would think that this committee is probably going to end up at
inflation plus a couple of percent, something like that. And I
could support that. But I could also support--a budget freeze
would not be the end of the world for this committee or for the
Congress. That would send the right signal to the American
people that, as they tighten their belts, the Congress is going
to tighten its belt also.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Harper.
And Mr. Lungren, we have been joined by the committee
member, Ms. Lofgren.
And if you have any questions.
Ms. Lofgren. I do not.
Mr. Gonzalez. No questions.
Mr. Waxman, Mr. Barton, thank you very much.
Mr. Barton. Could I just comment on something that was not
asked me but was asked Mr. Waxman about this climate change
committee?
I would hope you all would abolish it. Whatever needs to be
done, between Mr. Waxman's troops and my scalawag band of
troops, we can get it done. We don't need the Select Committee.
To quote former Chairman Dingell, it is as useless as
feathers on a fish.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton, Mr. Waxman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Good afternoon, Chairman Rangel,
and Ranking Member Camp. Thank you for coming in front of the
House Administration Committee today. We look forward to your
comments and your statement.
I would like to recognize Chairman Rangel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for your
patience with us.
We come here, Mr. Camp and I, with some degree of
unanimity. We always have had no problem in the split of the
allocation, one-third/two-thirds. We are proposing a 5 percent
increase from 2008. And for 2010, we propose a 5 percent
increase from 2009. The total is an increase of approximately
9.2 percent over the 110th Congress.
We had suffered a tremendous cut in the 104th Congress,
with a funding cut of about 37 percent and the largest number
of personnel in recent history, 51 percent, for a committee
that still functioned. Considering all of this, we intend to
add three additional staff in view of the President's mandate
of social security, tax reform, climate change, family
security, and especially health, which is coming up.
We have accounted for travel, staff increases, and we hope
that you would favorably consider the request of our
distinguished committee.
And thank you, again, for your patience.
[The statement of Mr. Rangel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Camp.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVE CAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Lungren, and other members of the committee.
I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you
and with Chairman Rangel in support of our budget proposal for
the 111th Congress.
And I just wanted to mention, 2 weeks ago, as we neared
conclusion on the work on the President's stimulus bill,
Chairman Rangel and I were forced to postpone our testimony
because of the scheduling meeting of the conference. And I want
to offer my thanks and appreciation to the committee for
rescheduling our appearance here.
I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Rangel
for working with me and my staff. As he developed the Ways and
Means budget request, we were consulted in the preparation of
the budget proposal. And as he mentioned, under this budget
proposal, the minority has full control of one-third of the
budget and resources. And we will need these resources.
I think the chairman will readily agree that, as difficult
a challenge as the stimulus bill was, the Ways and Means
Committee will play an even more active role in many other
high-profile issues in the 111th Congress. A few of the major
bills include tax reform, health reform, climate change. And
so, accordingly, I support the committee's budget proposal. An
increase in our current budget will provide the additional
resources we need to meet the challenges of the 111th Congress.
It is consistent with the requested increases in the past
several Congresses. And I should note that the budget request
was approved by our committee unanimously on February 11th.
And I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And I don't know why our bells aren't going off in this
room or our lights, but I understand there is a vote on now,
and we have 12 minutes left. So rather than bring you back, I
would ask our committee to be rather short in any questions
they ask and we can then not miss the vote.
So, with that, Ranking Member Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I see the 111th Congressional request from your committee
is for $20,789,331.46. You are the only ones that have actually
got it to the penny. So I presume that all of it is divided
one-third/two-thirds in terms of staff and other expenditures.
Let me ask you this, the same thing we have asked other
committees. For a number of years, committees came before this
committee for a 1-year authorization. Now we do it by Congress.
But we thought it might be good to have committees return to us
after 1 year for us to review what has happened, the
expenditures you had, to see how that actually has set up with
respect to the intentions you had when you started.
I would hope that both of you would agree to do that with
us.
Mr. Rangel. We agree if you decide that is the way you want
to proceed. It doesn't make sense to be able to try to plan for
1 year. It seems that 2 years is short enough.
Mr. Lungren. No, this is just to come back after a year for
us to take a look and make sure how things are going after we
do the 2-year authorization.
Mr. Rangel. Oh, sure. You can come back every 6 months,
whatever you think is good.
Mr. Lungren. No, no, no, we don't want to see you that
much, Charlie. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rangel. We are so proud of our staff. We are proud of
the way we work together. And you may be able to make some
observations and recommendations on how we could improve what
we are doing.
Mr. Camp. Absolutely, we would be happy to cooperate in any
way that the committee deems.
Mr. Lungren. I have a whole list of questions, but in
respect to the chairman's request, I would refrain from asking
them at this point in time.
Mr. Rangel. I will meet you on the floor.
The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Given that votes have been called, the request
is unanimous and bipartisan, and the task before you is
enormous, I will pass on additional questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. No questions.
The Chairman. We thank you very much and appreciate you
appearing in front of us and look forward to seeing you again
and working along with you and thank you for the job that you
do.
Mr. Rangel. Thanks again for your patience with us.
The Chairman. We will recess now. We will come back with
one more committee, which is Rules, the last committee to come
back.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Good afternoon, and thank you for coming
today.
We noted you were busy having another hearing pending right
now to get us a rule for tomorrow, and we appreciate it and
welcome you here today.
Chairperson Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier, thank you.
And, again, we are interested in your statement and in your
comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUISE SLAUGHTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lungren.
We thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee on House Administration in support of the 111th
Congress funding request for the Committee on Rules.
As you know, the Committee on Rules is responsible for
setting the parameters of debate for specific pieces of
legislation. It has the unique role of considering the vast
majority of complex legislative initiatives before they come to
the House floor. Furthermore, the committee maintains
jurisdiction over many other issues of critical importance to
the ongoing operations of the House, everything from the
opening day's rules package to ensuring the ability of the
House to function in times of crisis.
In the 110th Congress, the Rules Committee meetings
increased by 22 percent over the 109th Congress. And the 111th
Congress has already witnessed an increase in activity due to
the dire economic environment affecting the country. In
January, which is normally a slower legislative period in the
House, the Rules Committee held its organizational meeting on
the second day of the 111th Congress in anticipation of the
upcoming legislative schedule. And during that month, the Rules
Committee provided rules providing for the consideration of
such significant legislation as TARP, SCHIP, and economic
recovery.
We strive to continue to be fully prepared to move an
ambitious legislative agenda to the House floor during the
111th Congress. Given the current economic crisis, our
committee is committed to doing more with less. The budget we
request today asks for a very prudent annual increase of 1.8
percent from the prior year's budget level. It is a budget that
will allow us to fund the daily operations of the committee
while still investing in ongoing efforts to serve the House
Membership and the public.
The modest request reflects an actual increase in dollars
per year of less than $65,000. In order to keep the overall
budget request prudent and still meet the pressing demands of
an ambitious legislative schedule, the committee reallocated
funds among accounts. This budget request includes a modest
increase in personnel funds necessary to maintain our work
output.
In addition, our budget request includes a continued
investment in modernizing our technology. These efforts have
had success thus far, though we still have more to do. And in
this Congress, we expect to move forward into the final phases
of development of our internal Rules database, now renamed the
Committee on Rules Electronic Database, or CORE.
Mr. Dreier was a most innovative Chair and he developed a
Rules amendment tracking system that we have expanded. It now
encompasses nearly the entire Rules Committee process,
including tracking amendments, recording votes in our hearings,
generating documents for distribution to the committee and for
filing on the floor.
Still, we require sustained investment in this essential
software in order to further integrate CORE into our committee
process. The budget reflects the committee's strong desire to
shift to a more efficient paperless format, as well as to
modernize our technology and public outreach efforts. In the
next iteration of CORE, we will make additional improvements to
further integrate this program with technologies that exist
within the Office of the Clerk and GPO, and we will take on the
task of integrating our internal data with our public Web site.
Our proposed budget continues the Rules Committee's
tradition of giving the minority one-third of the total staff
slots allocated to us, along with control over one-third of the
committee salary funds. The other categories represent joint
funding. We work with the minority to ensure that the necessary
resources are made available to them.
In conclusion, I believe this budget carefully and
responsibly funds priority accounts while reallocating money to
more properly reflect the demands on our committee's resources.
Although we would have preferred a greater investment in the
Rules Committee to help us accomplish our goals, we have chosen
to come before you today to request a modest budget that
reflects our commitment to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
money.
Thank you for considering our request, and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Slaughter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Ranking Member Dreier.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Lungren.
It is great to be here. And thanks to both of you for your
tremendous patience in dealing with all of our colleagues who
have been coming before you. I know we were scheduled to be
here, I guess, was it 2 weeks ago?
Ms. Slaughter. Last week I think.
Mr. Dreier. Last week I was in California. I wasn't going
to be here last week at all.
But I will say that we were scheduled to be here a couple
of weeks ago, so you obviously have been going through a
protracted process, and we appreciate very much your patience
and your service.
I am here to support the recommendation and proposal
offered by Mrs. Slaughter, the distinguished Chair of our
committee. She has outlined the responsibilities of the Rules
Committee. We all know what those consist of.
I do want to make a couple of comments. First, I think that
we are right behind your committee at the level of our request,
1.8 percent. I understand that you all are just a little bit
below us. And we are not trying to get into a competition with
you on this, but we are happy to be doing everything that we
can to follow your lead for the reason that Mrs. Slaughter
correctly stated; we need to set an example.
The American people are hurting. The size and scope and
reach of government is, from my perspective, way too big. And
if we can set an example by trying to reduce spending,
including in our level of funding for committees, I think it is
a great example. Now, as I say that, I recognize that we have a
very important constitutional responsibility, and we can't in
any way abrogate that. And so we do need to have necessary
resources.
Mrs. Slaughter nicely referred to the fact that we have
been able to set an example when it comes to transparency and
disclosure when it comes to putting things online. It is
interesting, we did everything that we could with the
technological advances that existed at that time, but she is
absolutely right in saying that building on that is important.
Why? Primarily because, I mean, under Moore's Law, we continue
to see tremendous improvements in technology. And I think that
our ability to get the work of the Rules Committee before our
colleagues and the American people is essential, and that is
why building on this plan is an appropriate one.
She mentioned the two-thirds/one-third split. And I will
say that, while we have had a good working relationship on that
and plan to continue it, my first choice would have been to
have the majority completely comply with the campaign plank
that they had that would give a full one-third to the minority
as far as management there, which I know was a campaign issue
for them. And I am sorry that that has not been able to fully
be implemented.
But I will say that we still, with the structure that we do
have, work well. We have our two staff directors sitting right
behind us now, and they work very closely together on a wide
range of issues. As you all know, the Rules Committee can be
the most partisan place of all. There is a ratio which I
preferred greatly when I was in the majority over the one that
I enjoy today in the minority, but that is the way it has been
for a long period of time, and I recognize and understand our
role and our responsibility there.
So I thank you all, again, very much for your work and for
your understanding and look forward to answering any questions
you might have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lungren, do you have any questions?
Mr. Lungren. I will just say that you have one of the most
modest requests for an increase of any of the committees, and
we do appreciate that, given everything we have had.
Mr. Dreier. Is it in fact second only to yours?
Mr. Lungren. No, actually it is, let us see, I think it is
third, but actually, you are ahead of us.
Mr. Dreier. Oh, somebody told me at one point that you
were----
Mr. Lungren. Well, this is for the 2-year period, because
it is a 2-year request, so we thank you.
Mr. Dreier. Can you tell us who is ahead of us?
Mr. Lungren. Well, you really want to know, don't you?
Budget is way ahead of you. Budget is way ahead of
everybody. And then we have Intelligence, and then I think you
folks are. Some of those who have some of the most important
things to do here are being the most prudent.
Ms. Slaughter. We are. We have a very heavy work load and I
think are indispensable to the running of the House.
Mr. Lungren. And I just noted in the material that you sent
to us, it mentioned that the Committee on Rules was first
established in 1789 on the second day of the First Congress.
Ms. Slaughter. That is right.
Mr. Lungren. Was it the first committee established?
Ms. Slaughter. It is the oldest committee in the House.
Mr. Dreier. Well, the Ways and Means Committee existed in
the Continental Congress, and so you can say it was, yeah.
Ms. Slaughter. But of the Congress, that was the first
committee composed of a committee Chair.
Mr. Lungren. I knew that we would find agreement here.
Ms. Slaughter. We always do.
Mr. Lungren. Well, one of the things we are asking is that,
in the past, well, a number of years past, we used to give
authorization for a single year. Now we do it for a full
Congress. But one of the thoughts is that we ought to have
committees come back to us after the first year just to report
on how things are going, so we can see how the budget is
actually expended and so forth, and we would hope that you
would cooperate with us in that request.
Ms. Slaughter. Indeed. Be happy to.
Mr. Dreier. Let me say that I think that is a fantastic
idea. And I believe what you all are doing here should be a
model for the entire Federal Government. I believe that we
should go to a 2-year, a 2-year cycle for the budget and do
precisely what you said, Mr. Lungren, actually enhance
oversight by virtue of doing that, allowing both the
appropriators and authorizers to have a greater chance at that.
So I think that the Administration Committee model should be
implemented throughout the entire Federal Government with a 2-
year budget process.
Mr. Lungren. Well, I thank you for that strong and
enthusiastic endorsement of our ideas, and we appreciate your
testimony.
You know, Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think maybe we should
grant them a larger increase in the budget if they could find
some rooms in the Capitol to return to this committee. What do
you think?
Ms. Slaughter. If we did those rules, we would have more
room in the Capitol. We are really cramped for space.
The Chairman. Everybody is cramped for space.
We thought we would get some new space now with the new
Visitors Center, but it is not happening. But also I understand
that some of the shops may be moving, so who knows? Maybe we
could get some more space. It is cozy sometimes, like we can't
even move back here without bumping into these lovely ladies,
which is not a bad idea.
Thank you so much. We appreciate you for your time.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]