House Report 106-72 - PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

[House Report 106-72]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-72

=======================================================================

PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

_______

March 22, 1999.--Referred to the House calendar and ordered to be
printed

_______

Mr. Thomas, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H. Res. 101]

The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 101) providing amounts for the expenses
of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the
One Hundred Sixth Congress, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the
resolution be agreed to.

The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Sixth Congress,
there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of
Representatives, in accordance with this primary expense resolution,
not more than the amount specified in subsection (b) for the expenses
(including the expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named
in that subsection.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $8,414,033; Committee
on Armed Services, $10,342,681; Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, $9,307,521; Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on
Commerce, $15,285,113; Committee on Education and the Workforce,
$11,200,497; Committee on Government Reform, $19,770,233; Committee on
House Administration, $6,251,871; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $5,164,444; Committee on International Relations,
$11,313,531; Committee on the Judiciary, $12,152,275; Committee on
Resources, $10,567,908; Committee on Rules, $5,069,424; Committee on
Science, $8,931,726; Committee on Small Business, $4,148,880; Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,632,915; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $13,220,138; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $4,735,135; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,930,338.

SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

(a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the
period beginning at noon on January 3, 1999, and ending immediately
before noon on January 3, 2000.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $4,101,062; Committee
on Armed Services, $5,047,079; Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, $4,552,023; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on
Commerce, $7,564,812; Committee on Education and the Workforce,
$5,908,749; Committee on Government Reform, $9,773,233; Committee on
House Administration, $2,980,255; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $2,514,916; Committee on International Relations,
$5,635,000; Committee on the Judiciary, $5,787,394; Committee on
Resources, $5,208,851; Committee on Rules, $2,488,522; Committee on
Science, $4,410,560; Committee on Small Business, $2,037,466; Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,272,416; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,410,069; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $2,334,800; and Committee on Ways and Means, $5,814,367.

SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

(a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the
period beginning at noon on January 3, 2000, and ending immediately
before noon on January 3, 2001.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $4,312,971; Committee
on Armed Services, $5,295,602; Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, $4,755,498; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on
Commerce, $7,720,301; Committee on Education and the Workforce,
$5,291,748; Committee on Government Reform, $9,997,000; Committee on
House Administration, $3,271,616; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $2,649,528; Committee on International Relations,
$5,678,531; Committee on the Judiciary, $6,364,881; Committee on
Resources, $5,359,057; Committee on Rules, $2,580,902; Committee on
Science, $4,521,166; Committee on Small Business, $2,111,414; Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,360,499; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,810,069; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $2,400,335; and Committee on Ways and Means, $6,115,971.

SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized
by the committee involved, signed by the chairman of such committee,
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House
Administration.

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration.

SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

There is hereby established a reserve fund of $3,000,000 for
unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred Sixth
Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a committee pursuant to
an allocation approved by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

The Committee on House Administration shall have authority to make
adjustments in amounts under section 1, if necessary to comply with an
order of the President issued under section 254 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any
reduction in appropriations for the purposes of such section 1.

COMMITTEE ACTION

On March 16, 1999, by record vote, a quorum being present,
the Committee agreed to an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and, by voice vote, a quorum being present, the
Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution, as
amended, favorably to the House.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.

STATEMENT ON BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED ITEMS

The resolution does not provide new budget authority, new
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under
clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is not required.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states, with
respect to the resolution, that the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office did not submit a cost estimate and
comparison under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS OF COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that
the Committee on Government Reform did not submit findings or
recommendations based on investigations under clause 4(c)(2) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

RECORD VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, with respect to each record vote
on a motion to report the resolution and on any amendment
offered to the resolution, the total number of votes cast for
and against, and the names of those Members voting for and
against, are as follows:

H. Res. 101, Record No. 1

Motion by Mr. Hoyer. Subject: Motion to agree to the
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Hoyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye Nay Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas............................. ......... X
Mr. Boehner............................ ......... X
Mr. Ehlers............................. ......... X
Mr. Ney................................ ......... X
Mr. Mica............................... ......... X
Mr. Ewing.............................. ......... X
Mr. Hoyer.............................. X .........
Mr. Fattah............................. X .........
Mr. Davis.............................. X .........
--------------------------------
Total............................ 3 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Res. 101, Record No. 2

Motion by Mr. Hoyer. Subject: Motion to agree to the
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Hoyer.

-H. Res. 101, Record No. 3

Motion by Mr. Boehner. Subject: Motion to agree to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Boehner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye Nay Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas............................. X .........
Mr. Boehner............................ X .........
Mr. Ehlers............................. X .........
Mr. Ney................................ X .........
Mr. Mica............................... X .........
Mr. Ewing.............................. X .........
Mr. Hoyer.............................. ......... X
Mr. Fattah............................. ......... X
Mr. Davis.............................. ......... X
--------------------------------
Total............................ 6 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Voice Vote

The Committee, by voice vote, with a quorum present, on
March 16, 1999, agreed to report H. Res. 101, as amended,
favorably to the House.

General Discussion

H. Res. 101, as amended, authorizes for standing committees
(excluding the Committee on Appropriations) and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence $180,378,663 for the 106th
Congress. An additional $3,000,000 is included in the
resolution, as authorization held in reserve for unanticipated
activities. In a separate Committee resolution, approved on
March 10, 1999, the Committee on House Administration
established franked mail allocations for these committees.
The sum total of all budget requests for the 106th Congress
was $189,029,110. The $180,378,663 authorized for committees is
$8,650,447, 4.6% less than the sum of all amounts requested by
committees.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106th
Committee request \1\ H. Res. 101 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture............................................. $8,564,493 $8,414,033 $4,101,062 $4,312,971
Armed Services.......................................... 10,599,855 10,342,681 5,047,079 5,295,602
Banking and Financial Services.......................... 9,725,255 9,307,521 4,552,023 4,755,498
Budget.................................................. 9,940,000 9,940,000 4,970,000 4,970,000
Commerce................................................ 15,537,415 15,285,113 7,564,812 7,720,301
Education and the Workforce............................. 12,382,570 11,200,497 5,908,749 5,291,748
Government Reform....................................... 21,028,913 19,770,233 9,773,233 9,997,000
House Administration.................................... 6,307,220 6,251,871 2,980,255 3,271,616
Intelligence............................................ 5,369,030 5,164,444 2,514,916 2,649,528
International Relations................................. 11,659,355 11,313,531 5,635,000 5,678,531
Judiciary............................................... 13,575,939 12,152,275 5,787,394 6,364,881
Resources............................................... 11,270,338 10,567,908 5,208,851 5,359,057
Rules................................................... 5,069,424 5,069,424 2,488,522 2,580,902
Science................................................. 9,018,326 8,931,726 4,410,560 4,521,166
Small Business.......................................... 4,399,035 4,148,880 2,037,466 2,111,414
Standards of Official Conduct........................... 2,860,915 2,632,915 1,272,416 1,360,499
Transportation.......................................... 14,539,260 13,220,138 6,410,069 6,810,069
Veterans' Affairs....................................... 5,220,890 4,735,135 2,334,800 2,400,335
Ways and Means.......................................... 11,960,876 11,930,338 5,814,367 6,115,971
-------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 189,029,110 180,378,663 88,811,574 91,567,089
=======================================================
Reserve Fund............................................ ............ 3,000,000 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 189,029,110 183,378,663 88,811,574 91,567,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount requested in budget request submitted to Committee on House Administration.

The minority offered two amendments to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The first amendment would require that
\1/3\ or greater of any amount allocated to a committee from
the reserve fund be paid at the direction of the ranking
minority member. The second amendment would require that \1/3\
or greater of any amount authorized to each committee be paid
at the direction of the ranking minority member. Both minority
amendments failed.

Committee Funding Process

The 106th Congress is the third funding cycle under the
biennial funding process instituted in the 104th Congress. At
the beginning of the 104th Congress, House Rules were revised
changing the Committee funding process to a biennial cycle and
abolishing the bifurcation of funding under statutory and
investigative accounts.
The biennial committee funding process has proven
successful. A two-year budget cycle saves time and resources
for all committees because the process is undertaken only once
per Congress, rather than twice as was done previously. The
biennial funding process facilitates long term planning and
cuts in half the time and resources dedicated to making,
defending and approving budget requests.

Comparison of Committee Funding Resolution

At the beginning of the 104th Congress, three standing
committees and 32 subcommittees were abolished. Committee staff
was reduced by 33% from the 103rd Congress levels and committee
funding levels were reduced by a total of 30%. In the 106th
Congress, committee staff and funding levels continue to remain
well below the 103rd levels.
H. Res. 101, as amended, authorizes a total of
$183,378,663, which is 18%, $39,956,755 below the 103rd
Congress level. The Speaker has set the staff ceiling for
committees, excluding the Committee on Appropriations, at 1,153
for the 106th Congress, which is 30%, 486 staff slots below the
103rd Congress level.

Committee Funding Resolution Comparisons
[Excluding Appropriations Committee]
103rd Congress, Democratic Majority........... $223.3 million
1,639 staff
104th Congress, Republican Majority........... $157.2 million = 70% of 103rd level (reduced 30%)
1,089 staff = 67% of 103rd level (reduced 33%)-
105th Congress, Republican Majority........... $177.9 million = 80% of 103rd level (reduced 20%)
1,104 staff = 67% of 103rd level (reduced 33%)
106th Congress, Republican Majority........... $183.4 million = 82% of 103rd level (reduced 18%)
1,153 staff = 70% of 103rd level (reduced 30%)

Detailees

In the 105th Congress, the Committee on House
Administration adopted new regulations for detailees. No
reimbursement is required for detailees, except for detailees
from the Government Printing Office (GPO). Detailees assigned
from the GPO require full reimbursement. The total number of
non-reimbursable detailees, at one time, must remain at or
below the 10% of the committee staff ceiling. Committees must
reimburse agencies for any detailees that exceed 10% of the
committee staff ceiling.
While detailees often provide special expertise not
available on committee staff, or expertise not required on a
permanent basis, this policy was intended to continue to ensure
prudent use of other agencies resources and to continue a full-
accountability model for committee funding. This regulation
will continue to remain in effect for the 106th Congress.
In February 1999, the Speaker increased committee staff
ceilings by the number of GPO detailees a committee had in
1998. The staff ceiling of any committee that had GPO detailees
in 1998 will increase by the number of GPO detailees.
Committees have the option of either continuing to use GPO
detailees, which will fill the additional staff slots, or
replace the GPO detailees with committee employees. The
additional staff positions may only be used for GPO detailees
or employees hired to assist in the preparation of committee
publications.

Reserve Fund

H. Res. 101, as amended, includes $3,000,000 for the
reserve fund in the 106th Congress. This amount is a
$4,900,000, 62% reduction from the amount allocated in the
105th Congress.
Historically, during a Congress new matters and issues that
require study and review come to the attention of the House.
Under a two-year funding cycle, there is a significantly
greater likelihood that Committees cannot accurately anticipate
all matters that may arise in their jurisdiction.
In the 105th Congress, a reserve fund was established as a
prudent method for funding such unexpected matters. The 105th
Congress funding resolution included $7,900,000 for the reserve
fund. The Reserve Fund proved vital in funding unanticipated
expenses in the 105th Congress.
Funds allocated to a committee from the reserve fund may
only be used for expenses associated with the project for which
the funds were requested. Funds may not be used to supplement
the funds authorized under a committee's primary expense
resolution. In addition, any increase in a committee's staff
ceiling is temporary and a committee's staff ceiling will
revert to its original level once the project is complete.

Guidelines for Allocation from the Reserve Fund

On March 10, 1999, the Committee adopted revised Guidelines
to more closely resemble the Committees' Congressional Handbook
regulation regarding Biennial Funding. The revised Guidelines
do not change the material that committees are required to
submit to the Committee on House Administration. Committees are
still required to submit documentation that shows why the funds
are needed and an explanation of why an allocation from the
Reserve Fund is necessary.
The most significant change is that Chairman and Ranking
Minority Members of each committee requesting an allocation
from the Reserve Fund will now be invited to testify before the
Committee.

Minority Resources

The majority is proud of the progress that has been made by
committees towards the goal of allocating one-third of each
committee's resources to the minority. We remain committed to
this goal.
In 1990, the Democratic Majority, pursuant to Democratic
Caucus Rule 34(F), adopted a policy that the committee caucuses
shall not be required to provide for more than 20 percent of
the total funding for minority investigative staff for the full
committee and each subcommittee of the committee. In 1994, at
the end of the 103rd Congress, only four committees (exclusive
of those with nonpartisan staff) allowed one-third of their
resources, staff and funds, to the minority party, with an
average allocation to the minority of 21% of staff slots.
When the Republicans assumed control in the 104th Congress,
staff allocations to the minority party significantly improved.
In the 104th Congress, all committees, excluding committees
with non-partisan staff, provided at least 22% of the total
staff salaries to the minority. Twelve committees provided 30%
or greater of staff salaries and eleven committees provided
over 25% of the staff slots to the minority.
In the 105th Congress, additional progress was made toward
one-third allocation of staff and resources to the minority.
All committees, excluding those with non-partisan staff,
provided at least 25% of staff salaries to the minority. The
average allocation of staff slots to the minority was 30% with
seven committees providing 33% and four committees providing
30% or more of staff slots to the minority.
In the 106th Congress, the average allocation of staff
slots to the minority will increase to 31% with nine committees
allocating 33% and five committees allocating 30% or more staff
slots to the minority. Committees will allocate an average of
32% of staff salaries, excluding administrative staff, to the
minority with eleven committees allocating 33% and four
committees allocating 30% or more of salary budget to the
minority. No minority will receive less than 28% of staff
salaries. In addition, four committees will provide a
percentage of the total committee budget to the minority.

Minority Resource Comparison
103rd Congress vs 106th Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd 104th 105th 106th
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Committees providing 33% 11% 35% 41% 53%
of staff slots\1\ to the minority..
Number of Committees providing:
33% or more..................... 2 6 7 9
25% to 32%...................... 7 9 9 8
Less than 25%................... 10 2 1 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the 103rd Congress, the calculation is based on investigative
staff. Committees with non-partisan staff, Armed Services and
Standards of Official Conduct, are not listed.

Committees that allocated less than 30% of staff slots to
the minority in the 105th Congress have made significant
movement toward the \1/3\ goal. The Committee on House
Administration will continue to encourage committees to work
toward the goal of a one-third allocation of resources to the
minority.

MINORITY VIEWS OF STENY H. HOYER, CHAKA FATTAH AND JIM DAVIS

republicans still right on the fairness issue

``A ratio of one-third/two-thirds for all committee staff,
investigative as well as statutory, is a sine qua non for
bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our
policy debates.''
This was the view of every member of the Republican
leadership and the ranking minority members of every House
committee in a March 30, 1993, letter to the Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress. (See Attachment 1).
It is just as valid today, as Republican and Democratic
House Members prepare to go to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to try to
lay to rest the institutional animosities that poisoned the
legislative process during the recent speakership of one of the
letter's principal co-signers--Rep. Newt Gingrich.
In 1999, the test of the Republican majority's commitment
to fairness and reform in House operations is whether it is
willing to practice what it preaches. This will be the third
Congress under Republican majority control. Republican
rationalizations justifying further delay in uniformly applying
this Republican principle of fundamental fairness, are totally
inconsistent with Speaker Hastert's call for the majority and
minority to work together in a spirit of comity. And all the
Republican invocations and excuses, particularly with respect
to several specific committees, cannot mask the fact that they
have failed to achieve what they stated was fair to the
minority. It is now time to provide one-third of the resources
on each standing committee to the minority party, to be
expended at the direction of its ranking minority member. This
includes one-third of all staff slots.
Chairman Thomas, to his great credit, has consistently been
fair to the Minority on the House Administration Committee, and
has provided to the minority one-third of funds, one-third of
staff, and complete discretion over the use of these resources.
He has also understood that a demonstration of respect for the
Minority, by adhering to the one-third principle, has in no way
hampered the ability of the House Administration Committee's
majority to be aggressive and partisan in pursuit of its own
agenda, and to fulfill the majority's responsibility to run the
House.
But no other committee has fully matched Chairman Thomas'
standard, though some have come close in terms of funding,
staffing, or control, or some combination thereof. There has
been a slow movement toward the principle of fairness on many
committees, but there is still a long way to go on several
others.

minority should control one-third of committee resources

When the Republican Party was in the minority in the 103rd
Congress, the Republican mantra was ``one-third for the
minority''. During that Congress, amendments to provide the
minority with one-third of all committee resources were offered
by Republicans in the House Administration Committee during
committee funding markups. Republicans also offered motions to
recommit the funding resolution with similar instructions
during floor consideration. These motions were advertised as
``fairness amendments'' by their sponsors.
In the 106th Congress, where the Democratic minority
represents nearly 49% of the Membership, one-third of all
committee resources is the minimum which would provide the
minority a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the House's
oversight and legislative activities. More importantly,
application of the one-third principle would promote comity,
and provide some checks and balances in the operation of the
House. A majority, while it can work its will if united, is not
always ``right''. And any policy debate will benefit directly
from a minority which has the resources to meaningfully
participate in the debate at all levels, and in fashioning
amendments to help perfect majority initiatives.
The application of the one-third principle is a win-win
situation. The application of anything less diminishes both
parties, and fosters the suspicion that the minority is being
intentionally disadvantaged to keep it from effectively
performing its role.
The Republican majority, which has only itself to blame for
some of its most publicized disasters during the last four
years, might have benefited from the minority's views, and also
from the minority's ability to temper the majority's positions,
or to at least focus majority attention on the consequences of
its proposed actions. But to effectively do so, the minority
must reach critical mass in developing its own information to
respond to the majority's initiatives. The Republican one-third
rule would provide those necessary resources.
The Republican leadership, and many committee chairs, have
found excuses to delay the one-third fairness principle for
five years, even though the Democratic minority in the House is
far larger than the Republican minority during the last 40
years. Rather than opening up the committee oversight and
legislative processes to all Members, irrespective of party,
the majority appears to have become bitter winners, retreating
behind statistics of perceived, past unfairness by Democratic
majorities, as an excuse to remember, and emulate, the alleged
sins of the past. More than half the current Members of the
House were elected since the Republicans took control. The
animosities of the past should not limit the capacity of any
House Members to fully represent their constituents in the
106th Congress. However these attitudes affect the majority
today, as they seek to rationalize their unwillingness to
implement the one-third principle across all their committees
now (See Attachment 2).

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

The dramatic cuts in the number of committee staff, and the
implementation of staff ceilings by Speaker Gingrich in 1995,
provided a seemingly ideal opportunity to reinvent the
committee funding process at every level, but the new
Republican majority failed to grasp the opportunity. They could
have adjusted staff sizes and funding amounts to give the
minority one-third on every committee. Instead, while cutting
staff, they institutionalized unfairness in the staffing levels
of several committees, and have used the Speaker's staff
ceilings to justify their further inaction. In subsequent
Congresses, either through attrition or by seeking staff
ceiling increases, committee chairs could have transitioned to
the one-third principle without disruption to their own
operations. But there has been minimal movement in this area,
and past inequities have been perpetuated in this resolution.
The report of this committee accompanying the funding
resolution in 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-74) stated:

Our goal is to have all committees, with the
agreement of the chairman and ranking minority member,
provide at least a one-third allocation of resources,
for use by the minority as directed by the ranking
minority member, as soon as practicable.

In 1995, Chairman Thomas said that committees, which did
not provide one-third to the minority immediately, would grow
toward one-third over time. Unfortunately, in the case of
several committees, the seeds were evidently planted in
concrete. While Chairman Thomas has provided leadership and
served as an example of proper minority allocation, and has
attempted to convince recalcitrant chairmen and the Republican
leadership to apply the one-third principle in other
committees, stronger measures are now clearly called for. The
House Administration Committee, and the House, should direct
all committees to finally meet the Republican majority's stated
commitment to fairness. Unfortunately, this committee expense
resolution fails to take that essential and overdue ``next
step''.
To assist in achieving the ``next step'', the minority
offered two amendments to the omnibus funding resolution. The
first amendment provided that each committee allow one-third of
the authorized funds to be controlled by the minority. The
second amendment provided that one-third of any reserve fund
disbursements be controlled by the minority. The first
amendment was identical in form to resolutions or motions
offered in the Committee, and on the House floor, by the
Republicans when they were in the minority. They believed in
the one-third principle of fairness then, and one would have
expected them to support their own amendments. However not a
single Republican voted in the Committee for the Republican
amendments when they were offered by the Democratic minority,
even though several of the Republicans who offered the
amendments still serve on the Committee today. This was truly a
missed opportunity for the majority to take an action
consistent with public statements that it is committed to a
more bipartisan and collegial administration of the House.

the principal problem areas

Two committees have lagged far behind others in
implementing the Republican's simple two-third/one-third
fairness principle, i.e., Government Reform, and Judiciary.
Both have been among the most active vehicles for the majority
in pursuing partisan investigations, which were planned and
executed with little or no consultation with the minority. Both
also benefited from disbursements from the reserve fund in the
105th Congress, above and beyond their funding levels approved
by the House. Both have refused to grant the minority one-third
of the staff slots, one-third of either staffing or
administrative funds, or control over the limited funds
provided. And both have paid only lip service to the goal of
providing the minority with one-third over the six year period
(including this resolution), with Government Reform remaining
largely unchanged at 25 percent since 1995.
The performance of the Government Reform Committee in the
105th Congress illustrates the dangers of a lack of
accountability. The committee held few hearings, spent huge
sums of money, duplicated resources available elsewhere,
ignored possible Republican violations of campaign laws, and
altered telephone transcripts to advance the majority agenda.
It was reported that even former Speaker Gingrich, at a meeting
of the Republican Conference, was critical of the majority's
alteration of transcripts of telephone conversations,
characterizing the action as an embarrassment. Had the minority
had the opportunity and resources to participate more fully in
the conduct of the committee's business, it might have been
able to serve as a restraint on this committee's record of
excess and irresponsibility.
Despite its record, this Committee asked for an increase of
over 7 percent above its 105th Congress funding level, while
still freezing the minority's resources at 25 percent. The
chairman made this request without any consultation or
communication with the minority, in violation of Government
Reform Committee rules, and without any consideration by the
full Committee.
The Judiciary Committee has also failed to make substantial
progress toward one-third fairness principle. The Committee
sought an increase of 28 percent above the 105th Congress
level, and received an increase of approximately 15 percent in
the resolution. Yet even with the increased funding, it is
refusing to provide even a third of its resources to the
minority.

the reserve fund

The failure of the Education and the Workforce Committee,
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and Judiciary
Committee probes to produce any significant results from their
105th Congress investigations funded by the reserve fund,
demonstrates the dangers of having an unaccountable pot of
money which can be expended at the discretion of the Speaker by
a simple vote of the House Administration Committee, without
any real debate by either this Committee or by the full House.
The legitimate role of a reserve fund would be greatly enhanced
by allowing the House to vote on any intended use.
The majority recommended $3,000,000 for the reserve fund in
the 106th Congress--a substantial cut from the amounts
allocated in the previous Congress. This is a welcome
reduction, and this limited amount may serve as a disincentive
to disburse funds for partisan or irrelevant investigations.
Hopefully the reserve fund will be used only for unanticipated
expenses which serve public, rather than partisan political
interests. However it should be noted that two partisan
oversight investigations in the 105th Congress, which were
funded from the $7,900,000 reserve fund, have simply been
continued in the 106th Congress by authorizing the Government
Reform, and Education and the Workforce Committees substantial
increases in their funding. Although this has allowed the
reserve fund to be reduced in the 106th Congress, it has done
nothing to mitigate the partisan use of funds in these two
cases.
Of particular concern is the Census Subcommittee of the
Government Reform Committee, which has now been embedded in the
most partisan committee in the House. The Census is of enormous
importance to all citizens of the United States, and to all
their elected representatives. Ensuring an accurate Census
count is an essential part of ensuring fairness in the
allocation of Federal funds at all levels during the next
decade, and ensuring appropriate state-by-state representation
in this institution. There should be nothing partisan about
ensuring an accurate Census count, and oversight on the Census
should therefore be on a totally bipartisan basis. The
inclusion of the Census Subcommittee under the most partisan
committee in the House--a committee with the worst record of
allowing any meaningful minority involvement--is unacceptable.
In order for the Census Subcommittee to be bipartisan, there
should be an equal number of majority and minority members,
with an equal division of staffing and other resources. And
failing that, the one-third rule should govern staffing and
resource allocation on that Subcommittee.
The Majority has also taken a small step to open up the
reserve fund process to greater scrutiny. It has amended this
Committee's internal guidelines for the consideration of
reserve fund requests, to include an invitation to the chairman
and ranking minority members to testify publicly. This will
provide some needed accountability, and help debunk the
perception in the last Congress that reserve fund requests were
simply a matter between the requesting chairmen and the
Speaker, with the minority having no role, and the House
Administration Committee serving only the ministerial function
of implementing the Speaker's decisions.
The practice in the 105th Congress served to centralize
control in the office of the Speaker at the expense of broader
institutional review of funding requests. It also spared the
majority from the embarrassment of having their requests for
partisan political investigations subjected to public scrutiny.
The practice in this Congress should increase public
accountability, and better ensure the constructive expenditure
of these funds.
However we believe that the Committee should go even
further and require, at a minimum, consultation with the
minority on the committees involved, before any reserve fund
request is formalized.
With the support of this Committee's minority members, and
the support of every ranking minority member on every House
com-

mittee (except the Standards Committee), Representative Hoyer
introduced H. Res. 38, which calls for a House vote on any
allocation from the reserve fund. The prospect of public debate
and a vote would require greater care on the part of the
Majority in its preparation of reserve fund requests.

H. Res. 101

The Minority understands that the Majority may have some
difficulty passing H. Res. 101, the Omnibus Committee Funding
resolution, just as it did in 1997, when the rule providing for
its consideration was defeated, and the committee funding
process had to be divided into separate resolutions, with final
action delayed until May of that year. The Majority in 1999 is
still caught between committee chairmen, who have asked for
large funding increases, Republicans who believe in fairness,
and other Republican members who seek to limit the growth of
government spending irrespective of its purpose.
One way to avoid a repetition of this problem would be to
reach out to the minority members who understand the need for a
properly funded committee system. As long as the minority is
treated fairly in the allocation of resources, and is consulted
in the preparation of committee agendas, a truly bipartisan
committee funding resolution would be possible. It would be
especially appropriate now, in light of the new Republican
leadership's desire to promote a more civil atmosphere in the
House, and comity and bipartisanship in the legislative
process. This would require abandoning the former Speaker's
penchant for bypassing House rules, the committee system, and
other mechanisms of responsible legislative action, each of
which provides Members collectively, and minority Members in
particular, an opportunity to represent their constituents on
an equal footing with every other Member.
The Republican leadership should finally, and forthrightly,
meet its commitment to provide the minority with one-third of
all committee resources--dollars, staff, and control. It has
still not done so in this resolution. H. Res. 101, as amended
in the Committee, fails the test of fairness and bipartisan
cooperation, and deserves to be defeated.

Steny H. Hoyer.
Chaka Fattah.
Jim Davis.