[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H. RES. 115, THE OMNIBUS COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION;
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION FOR FRANKED MAIL ALLOWANCES FOR CERTAIN
COMMITTEES; AND DISPOSITION OF ELECTION CONTEST IN THE 28TH DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Held in Washington, DC, March 14, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet
www.fdsys.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-287 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia Ranking Minority Member
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
Professional Staff
Kelly Craven, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H. RES. 115 THE OMNIBUS COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION,
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION FOR FRANKED MAIL ALLOWANCES FOR CERTAIN
COMMITTEES, AND DISPOSITION OF ELECTION CONTEST IN THE 28TH DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:07 p.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Harper, Gingrey, Schock,
Rokita, Nugent, Brady, and Lofgren.
Staff Present: Kelly Craven, Staff Director; Phil Kiko,
General Counsel; Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel;
Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk;
Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel;
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Teri Morgan, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Minority Senior Policy
Analyst; Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; Mike
Harrison, Minority Professional Staff Member; Greg Abbott,
Minority Professional Staff Member; and Eddie Flaherty,
Minority Professional Staff Member.
The Chairman. I would like to call to order the Committee
on House Administration for today's committee markup.
The meeting record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so that Members might submit any materials they wish to be
included.
The Chairman. And a quorum is present, so we will proceed.
Today we have three items before the committee: first of
all, House Resolution 115, which is the omnibus committee
funding resolution, which will authorize committee budgets for
the 113th Congress. We also have a committee resolution to
approve franked mail allowances for committees for the 113th
Congress and an original resolution relating to an election
contest that happened in the 28th Congressional District of
Texas.
Every Congress, this committee holds hearings to examine
the budgetary needs of House committees to help ensure that
they have adequate resources. This funding process, perhaps one
of our most important responsibilities of this committee, can
significantly impact the legislative process, as committees
bear the lion's share of Congress' workload.
Last week, we had 2 informative days of hearings where we
heard from all of the chairs and the ranking members of the 19
House committees that came before us. And we certainly heard
some very compelling and thoughtful testimony from each of the
chairmen and the ranking members about their respective budgets
and their commitment to uphold the equitable two-thirds/one-
third allocation between the majority and the minority offices.
And, most importantly, they talked about how they were going to
do more with less, which is a very--certainly a topic that we
are all very, very familiar with.
Leading by example, the House cut committee budgets by
approximately 11 percent in the last Congress--the largest cut
to committee funding since the 104th Congress. And today we are
faced with yet another cut, this time obviously triggered by
the sequester, sequestration.
After much deliberation and consultation with each
committee, we had to make some very difficult, difficult
choices. And, of course, like all of our MRAs, the committee
funding authorizations have to be adjusted to reflect the
reduced spending levels detailed in the sequestration order.
To match the post-sequestration funding level, the total
authorization for House committees must be reduced by 11
percent from the 2012 level. Therefore, with few exceptions,
each committee authorization has been reduced by 11 percent, or
within a percentage point or so of 11 percent. And we base this
on their anticipated workload for the 113th Congress.
The Budget Committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and
the Select Committee on Intelligence have been given slightly
smaller reductions. Most committees will be faced with
tremendous oversight responsibilities in 2013. However, given
the current state of our economy, sequestration, the dire need
for tax and entitlement reform, and the increased cyber threats
to our digital infrastructure, these three committees have a
particularly daunting agenda and therefore require some
reprieve from the authorized reductions. To accommodate for
these exceptions, we have adjusted the authorization of the
Budget Committee based on their ability to absorb a slightly
larger reduction in 2013.
Again, we certainly, all of us, every one of us, understand
the challenges of trying to stretch our resources. And we just
have to try to absorb these cuts as best as we can. And I know
that every committee, including this, will continue to function
at a very high level, even with reduced resources.
Our second item for consideration is a committee resolution
to approve franked mail allowances for the committees for the
113th. This resolution limits $5,000 per year for each
committee's franked mail.
And our third and last item on the agenda is an original
resolution to dismiss the election contest in the 28th district
of Texas.
And, with that, I would now recognize our ranking member,
Mr. Brady, for his opening statement.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you for
convening this markup and for working with us on all the
scheduling issues last week with regards to our marathon
hearings.
I do urge this committee to oppose this resolution. We
imposed the equivalent of a sequester on all House committees
in 2011-2012, so we are already well ahead of the curve. Those
cuts, as we heard in detail from chairs and ranking members
last week, have already created significant hardships in paying
the salaries of staff, conducting oversight travel, and holding
hearings. These are not luxuries we can simply wish away. We
will have to continue to be able to conduct the people's
business.
To pile on further with automatic sequestration cuts devoid
of any rational basis and to furlough our staff would cause
damage to the legislative process and to the people who make it
possible for us to operate. It is cutting off our nose to spite
our face.
We should look for all opportunities to alleviate the
impacts of the cuts. That is why I will later offer a
substitute amendment to freeze funding at the level of the 2012
resolution to manage our House finances in a more sensible
manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
And I would ask if any other members of the committee have
an opening statement?
The chair recognizes Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for
calling the markup today on committee funding for the 113th
Congress.
As you know, with the implementation of the sequester on
March the 1st, across-the-board spending cuts did take effect.
Last week, this committee had a chance to hear from our
colleagues, the chairmen and ranking members of each House
committee, about how they would handle the impact of the
sequester.
I believe that this committee is acting in a deliberative
and a fair manner when determining committee budgets for this
113th Congress. Each committee serves an important function,
and while all will have to continue to produce good work with
less, I am confident that they will succeed in doing that.
Today's markup gives us an important chance to show that,
as families across the country struggle to make ends meet, this
committee and the House as a whole plan to lead by example.
So thank you, Madam Chairman. And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman. The first item on the agenda is consideration
of the House Resolution 115, the omnibus committee funding
resolution for the 113th Congress.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Again, as I said in my opening statement, we
have talked to every chairman, every ranking member. We
recognize the cuts are difficult, but it is flat-lined in the
CR and there simply is a finite pot of money to go around. And
I would hope that the committee would support the resolution.
I would recognize the ranking member, Mr. Brady, if he has
any comment.
Mr. Brady. Yes, Madam Chair. If it is appropriate, I would
like offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
My amendment is very simple. I propose we freeze each
committee's authorization for this year and next year at last
year's level. Under my approach, House committees' funding will
have been the same for 3 years, unchanged since we last reduced
funding at the beginning of 2012. I don't believe there is a
Member of this House who couldn't defend a 3-year freeze on
continuing funding.
As the former chairman of this committee, it appeals to me
because it offers every committee chairman and ranking minority
member certainty. Every committee knows it can work with this
figure and accomplish what it needs to accomplish to fulfill
its responsibility to the House of the American people because
it has already done so.
Second, it makes sense. During our hearings, the chairman
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Issa,
took great pride in ascertaining that, through the work of his
committee, he has saved the government 1,000 times what the
committee had spent last year. This is a handsome return on the
investment. I am certain that other committees could
legitimately make the same boast, and, that being the case, why
should we not invest this year or next in any committee that we
invested in last year?
Third, it bears pointing out that no committee is required
to spend every dollar it is authorized to spend. In fact,
several committees, including this one, last year returned
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Treasury after judging
they had accomplished their work, and no doubt would do it
again this year and next. No chairman and ranking member is
required to spend everything authorized. But my approach gives
effective chairmen resources to earn the kind of return that
Mr. Issa boasts of.
My amendment would do one other thing along these lines; it
would require each committee at the end of this year to report
back on how much the agency it oversees has saved. This will
give each chairman and ranking minority member the opportunity
to demonstrate how much they helped to save.
I urge the support of my amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for that.
I should have called up the resolution and said that the
first reading of the resolution is dispensed with and the
resolution is considered read and open for amendment, at which
time you amended it, and I certainly appreciate that. And I
appreciate the amendment, which will be considered as read.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I would only say this. Again, it certainly is
a difficult time to be involved at the Federal level, as far as
our budgeting, but no more difficult than what is being
recognized, certainly, by the American people, having come to a
very difficult economic transition here.
And I think the House certainly has led by example. We did
have a 5 percent cut in the 112th and followed by a in-the-
sixth-percentile cut, now an 8 percent cut to our own
individual MRAs, which happened just a week ago. And these are
very difficult choices for us all to be making as Members of
Congress within our own MRAs.
And now, as we look at what is happening with the
committees, particularly when we think about, during the time
that the House has really been leading by example, the
executive branch for nondiscretionary defense is--for
nondefense discretionary spending has gone up I think 16.7
percent during the same time. And yet we are challenged, all of
our committees are challenged with exercising the appropriate
oversight.
So it is a difficult time. And I appreciate the gentleman's
sentiments not to cut the committees' budgets, but the money
has to come from somewhere else then. If there is an offset--I
am not sure if you have an offset in mind. But, at any rate, I
will be opposing the gentleman's amendment, but I certainly
appreciate the spirit in which it is offered.
And I would ask if there are any other Members that want to
speak to the amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Madam Chair.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to briefly speak in support
of Mr. Brady's amendment.
It is true that this is a difficult environment, and,
certainly, each one of our personal offices has received
reductions, and I haven't heard any Members coming in and
asking for relief from that. And I think that that is
appropriate. We know that is where we live, and we have to
manage that.
But some of these committees, as the ranking member said,
are going to save us a lot of money. And I know that this isn't
the position you wish to be in either, but I really would hope
that we might at least keep flat-line funding and see how many
savings can be accomplished by the committees within those
budget limits. Because I know in the last Congress there were
committees that said, you know, that they didn't have enough
and yet, through prudent management, they were able to give
money back. And I give credit for that. But some committees,
given the workload they had, it is just not going to be
possible for them to do that and to fulfill the duties that we
have asked them to do.
So I would hope that we could do this on a sort of salary-
savings basis and maybe revisit where we are in a couple of
months and see how the spending levels are down and see what
maneuvering we might be able to make. I would recommend that as
an alternative to the offset that is not included into the
amendment.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her comments.
Are there any other comments?
If not, the question is on the amendment to the resolution.
All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying yea.
Those opposed, signify by saying nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays
have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments?
The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment----
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Which I would offer now.
The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes to
speak on the amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. And I don't know that I will take
the full amount.
But I have served on a variety of different committees in
this House--on the Judiciary Committee, the Science Committee,
the Homeland Security Committee, the Ethics Committee, this
committee. And I am mindful that the Judiciary Committee is
about to engage in a level of activity that I don't think the
funding is going to help them meet that obligation.
As you know, there has been tremendous discussion about gun
violence, and, in talking to Mr. Goodlatte just a few hours
ago, our efforts relative to the Second Amendment are going to
be very time-consuming. And I know that on both sides of the
aisle we want that to be done properly. I don't doubt that you
feel the same way.
I would add also that there has been tremendous
speculation, and I think accurate, that we may finally be able
to work in a bipartisan basis on immigration reform. I can
assure you, as the ranking member of that subcommittee and
former chairperson of the Immigration Subcommittee, that Mr.
Gowdy and I will work together very collaboratively. But the
job is a massive one.
And my amendment would allow the Judiciary Committee just
to maintain its current funding. That will mean reductions in
staff, in some cases. But at least if we were to do that for
the remainder of this fiscal year, we might have an opportunity
to actually accomplish those two weighty goals and be able to
take the reduction in the following year.
So that would be my amendment, Madam Chair. And I thank you
for allowing me to offer it with these brief comments.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I appreciate the amendment of the gentlelady
from California, and, again, I appreciate sincerely the spirit
in which it was offered.
In fact, in regards to the Judiciary, you are absolutely
right, and we did hear that testimony from both the chairman
and the ranking member about step-by-step immigration reform,
as we go forward, as a distinct possibility of that happening
during this session, perhaps this year, and certainly in
regards to the Second Amendment, as well, and some of the
various proposals that are floating around here on both sides.
I think there is going to be quite a workload by the
Judiciary. And really, as a consideration of that--that is, you
see that Judiciary's percentage cut is lower than some of the
other committees. Again, I recognize the tremendous workload
that Judiciary, and the other committees as well, are
absorbing, or will have in absorbing these cuts. And it is just
a difficult time, as well.
So I will be opposing the gentlelady's amendment. Again, I
appreciate the spirit in which it has been offered.
Any other Members have comments in regards to the
amendment?
Mr. Schock. Madam Chairman, I would just----
The Chairman. Mr. Schock.
Mr. Schock. Thank you.
I would just add that, with regards to both the amendments
that my friends on the other side of the aisle have offered, it
is frustrating that these cuts are having to take effect across
the board, really in essence of how they are happening, because
of the sequestration. And I would just say that, you know, the
House has done its work in passing an alternative to
sequestration. Unfortunately, the Senate did not reciprocate,
and so we are having to move forward with these cuts.
I do think it is a discussion we need to have moving
forward with any other further deficit-reduction measures that
the House and Senate agree to because of the point that was
raised by the chairwoman, which is: When I came to Congress 5
years ago, discretionary spending from 2008 to 2010 went up by
40 percent. The executive branch received 16 percent increases
in their spending, and certainly our MRAs and committee staff
salaries and budgets did not increase by those amounts.
So I think when we look at reducing the size of government
and making cuts in future deficit-reduction measures, we need
to look historically at how fast certain agencies have grown
when we go about our cutting.
Because I think the point that the minority is making is a
relevant one, which is the work that we do in the House is an
important one to accountability within these agencies and
accountability of the Federal Government and also in good law-
making. And the reality is no other agency or unit of
government can do that which these committees are charged with
or us as elected representatives with our MRA do. The casework
that we do, the accountability that we administer to these
agencies on behalf of our constituents is an important
function, and there is no one else that can do that.
And so I certainly share these concerns, am equally
frustrated by the kind of across-the-board cuts that are having
to happen. But we are where we are today, I would simply say,
by, in my view, the inaction of the Senate to give us a scalpel
as opposed to a hatchet. And so now we will, moving forward, I
think have to hopefully include these thoughts in our next
efforts to right-size our budget.
With that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Any other Member wish to speak to the
amendment?
Mr. Brady. Yes. Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you. And I speak in favor of the
gentlelady from California's amendment.
And I sat here with these hearings, and I asked every
chairman and ranking member about their staff. And I find
myself a little perplexed here. Because if we would do flat-
line or we would do some other way other than cutting some
budgets, we are probably--I am sitting here helping the other
party getting two-thirds more, then my party would get one-
third more.
And I tell you that to say this: I do that not because I
want people to get an increase or be able to hire more people.
I worry about the people that they attract, especially
Judiciary. I worry about every staff member on all these
committees, especially Judiciary because most of them need a
legal background, and I wonder how we attract them. And then we
attract them, and when we do, how do we keep them? Not only how
do we attract them or try to bring them in--I know they are all
dedicated, but when you have to pay a mortgage, you can't pay
it with dedication. You can't pay car payments, you can't pay
schooling with dedication. And I wonder and I worry about--and
every chairman and ranking member agreed that they are having a
hard time, A, attracting them; B, keeping them, with their
institutional knowledge.
And I understand that we have to do cuts. We are going to
do it with no complaints for doing our own MRA, and it is what
it is. But I wonder about the effectiveness of this House and
how we can truly do the people's business when we can't get
qualified people and, more so, we can't keep qualified people.
So that is why I would support this amendment. And I
appreciate your time, and I yield back mine. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman's comments.
Any other Members?
All those in favor of the amendment will signify by saying
yea.
Those opposed will signify by saying nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays
have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments?
If not, I move that the committee favorably report House
Resolution 115 to the House. And the question is on the motion.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying yea.
Opposed, say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it. The yeas
have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. Does any Member----
Mr. Brady. Excuse me, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. I would like to ask that the minority Members
request 2 additional calendar days provided by clause 2 of Rule
XI of the Rules of the House in order to file reviews.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. We will move to the next item.
Very well.
The next item on the agenda is consideration of Committee
Resolution 113-5, which is the committee franking resolution.
Again, this committee resolution essentially caps the
amount of franked mail that all the respective committees can
utilize at $5,000, I believe is the number. And I will be
supporting the resolution and hope that the committee sees fit
to pass the resolution.
And I ask the ranking member if he has any comment.
Mr. Brady. No.
The Chairman. So I call up and lay before the committee
Committee Resolution 113-5. Without objection, the first
reading of the resolution is dispensed with, and the resolution
is considered read and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Is there any amendment to the resolution?
If there are no amendments, I move the committee agree to
the committee resolution. And the question is on the motion to
agree to the resolution.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, say nay.
The motion carried. In the opinion of the chairman, the
motion is agreed to.
And, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
And the last item that we have before the committee is an
original resolution to dismiss an election contest which
happened in the 28th district of Texas.
I think this is a very simple resolution. I would ask the
ranking member if he has any statement on the resolution.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I join you in
recommending dismissal of this frivolous election contest.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
I will now call up and lay before the committee the
original resolution. And, without objection, the first reading
of the resolution is dispensed with, and the resolution is
considered read and open for amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. So are there any Members that want to offer
an amendment to the resolution?
If not, I move the committee favorably report the original
resolution to the House. The question is on the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying yea.
Opposed, say nay.
In the opinion of the chairman, the yeas have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
And for all of the matters that the committee has
considered today, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be
authorized to make technical and conforming changes if
necessary.
Without objection, so ordered.
And this concludes all the matters before the committee. I
certainly want to thank all the Members for their
participation, their thoughtful amendments, thoughtful
conversation.
And, with that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]