[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 114TH CONGRESS (PART TWO)
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 11, 2015
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-561 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois Ranking Minority Member
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JUAN VARGAS, California
RICHARD NUGENT, Florida
------
Professional Staff
Sean Moran, Staff Director
Kyle Anderson, Minority Staff Director
COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 114TH CONGRESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Harper, Nugent, Davis,
Comstock, Brady, and Lofgren.
Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; John Clocker,
Deputy Staff Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Deputy General
Counsel; John L. Dickhaus, Legislative Clerk; Erin Sayago,
Communications Director; George Hadijski, Director of Member
Services; Max Engling, Professional Staff; Cole Felder,
Counsel; Nick Hawatmeh, Counsel; Kyle Anderson, Minority Staff
Director; Matt Pinkus, Minority Senior Policy Advisor; Khalil
Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Director of Legislative
Operations; Mike Harrison, Minority Chief Counsel; and Eddie
Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk.
The Chairman. I call to order the Committee on House
Administration for the continuation of our hearing on committee
funding for the 114th Congress. A quorum is present.
One of the most important functions of the Committee on
House Administration as we begin each new Congress is to set
funding levels for each of the standing committees of the House
so that they can effectively plan and accomplish their
legislative and oversight priorities. This process began
earlier this year as we gathered information from each
committee as they prepared for the coming session. Last week,
the full Committee heard from the chairman and ranking member
of a number of committees as they explained their requests and
outlined their plans for their respective committees.
Today we are going to hear from the remaining House
committee chairs and ranking members so that we can then
complete our process of marking up a budget resolution which
sets funding levels for each committee to be presented for
consideration by the full House.
I certainly want to thank each of the chairmen and ranking
members who have already appeared before our Committee, those
that we are going to hear from today, and their staffs for the
outstanding cooperation with which they have worked with our
committee and our staff in moving this important process
forward.
Before we begin, let me first ask for unanimous consent.
Without objection, I would ask unanimous consent to enter the
following document into the hearing record, a statement from
myself as the chairman of this Committee on our own Committee's
budget request. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement of the Chairman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. I would recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also ask unanimous
consent to submit for the record a statement in support of the
funding request for the Committee on House Administration.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Does the gentleman have any opening statement before we
begin? All right.
With that, we will start with Natural Resources this
morning. We certainly want to welcome Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva for their attendance today.
Before we even recognize you, let me just tell both of you
gentlemen that your respective staffs on your committee, were
very, very helpful with our Committee when we were seeking
information to put everything together here for your committee
funding request. So we are very appreciative of that; and we
appreciate you both attending here today.
I would ask our official reporter to enter a page break
since we are starting a new section for the record.
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources has a
proud history and jurisdiction over our Nation's energy and
mineral resources, fisheries and wildlife, affairs related to
our Native American Indian communities, our water and power
resources, and our public lands and environmental regulations.
With that, we appreciate the chairman and ranking member
coming before us this morning, and we would recognize now
Chairman Bishop.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you
for your kind words that you said about our staff. They are
still not getting a raise, but I appreciate those kind words.
We have a formal statement that I would like to submit for
the record so that you have it, but let me just hit a couple of
the highlights in it.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Bishop. Which I do think, in reality, it is probably
not going to be a whole lot different from some of the other
committees' chairmen from whom you have heard. But we are
asking for a 2.5 percent increase for the next 2 years to try
and compensate in some way for the 13 percent cut or larger
that we have all had in our committee budgets that had been
done over the past few years for which no one has really given
us a whole lot of credit for it. We are also trying to
institute a restructuring of our subcommittees. We will be
talking more and more about oversight of agencies that are
spending $15 billion, and I think we need to do that.
Also, with the transition in the new chair, we were down. I
mean, we started this session with one-third of the positions.
We are in the process of trying to fill those. We also have the
problem that I think everyone else is having with travel
budgets that have been taking the brunt of the cuts. We are
down by about 75 percent, so roughly at the same level we had
in 2011.
And I would emphasize the fact that, unlike some of the
other committees, our jurisdiction is out West. We have got to
travel a long way to get to where our problems are. I have
always kept telling you, I want you out of my State of Utah.
Just go away and we will all be happy. Well, to find out what
the problems we have in Resources, you have got to travel a
distance. So that gives us, I think, a unique problem and
perspective we have if any kind of hearing is going to take
place.
And with that, let me just yield back and submit the full
statement for the record.
The Chairman. Thank the chairman very much.
[The statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mr. Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
Brady. And I would like to enter the full statement into the
record if there is no objection.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And I am pleased to join with Chairman Bishop today to ask
for your support for the Natural Resources Committee budget
request. The chairman pointed out the areas in which the
increase is justified--travel, full allocation of staff to the
committee function.
And I think it is important also to note that last session
we had a total of 712 bills and resolutions referred to the
committee. We had 159 legislative and oversight hearings, 22
full committee markup sessions, and passage in the House of 128
bills, of which 55 became public law. And I mention that
because the volume of work, I think, merits your consideration.
The distance of travel for essential hearings out in the West
merits your consideration.
And while Chairman Bishop and I have had and will have
vigorous debates as to the issues that come before the
committee, the consistent practice of staff allocation is in
this budget, and I concur with him entirely that 5 percent, 2.5
each year over this session is merited and justified and, quite
frankly, quite needed.
And with that, closing, let me thank you, Chairman Miller,
Ranking Member Brady, and my colleague Mr. Bishop, and yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, both gentlemen, for coming.
[The statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. We are very cognizant of the cuts that not
only the respective MRAs for the members have taken in the last
couple of cycles, but certainly in regards to the committees as
well. As you have articulated here, you are looking for a small
increase, principally, I suppose, for your staff. I am just
looking at some of the background that you gave us where you
have a staff ceiling of 69, and you are averaging about 57
positions filled.
So as you look at the possibility of us being able to give
you a bit of plus-up from level funding here--and we are going
to be considering that--I keep telling all the chairmen, I will
tell you the same thing, obviously we have got a finite pie of
the amount of resources that we have.
We listened to all the chairmen and rankers last week to a
number of about half of the committees, and today we are going
to get the other half in here, and our Committee is trying to
see what we can do in recognizing how important it is for our
committees to be able to do the oversight that is under our
jurisdiction; and how important that is; and how we have really
hobbled ourselves in the last couple of cycles as we have tried
to be sensitive and fiscally conservative, et cetera. So we are
going to take a close look on this.
Now, I guess, my question would just be, and I think you
have pretty much said that in your testimony, both of you
gentlemen, if you were to get the increase, would it be
exclusively for additional staff? Are you looking as far as any
kind of technology changes that you might have in your
infrastructure there on your committee that would make it more
efficient, or is it just field hearings, staff?
Mr. Bishop. Well, there are always areas in which you can
use technology to try and save areas. Unfortunately, I think
that has been the first area that has already been done. So we
have implemented those types of changes. As we find other
elements, we can easily do those. That is not where the big
money is. The big money, as you all know, still comes from
salaries and field hearings.
So specifically, if there was a plus-up, the areas I would
be looking at very quickly is, we are going to go through the
NEPA process again. I would like to have a staffer specifically
dedicated to a review of that law, which hasn't been reviewed
for decades and becomes a key element.
We are also doing the oversight. And I would specifically
like one that would be able to go in there and plus up in that
area to look at the new regulations that are being given by the
agencies, because those are the types of things we want to
cover.
And then third, I think we probably have on both sides of
the aisle a disproportionate number of new members and first-
year members who really do need some kind of oversight hearings
in their particular areas. So I think the third priority would
be going to some kind of ability to have more field hearings in
those areas, especially to help the new members along, as well
as the entire committee.
So I think, if I were to prioritize and have a plus-up,
somebody to help us on NEPA, somebody to help us in the
oversight, and then the field hearings would be the way we
would prioritize any kind of increases.
The Chairman. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. I concur. I think the formation of the new
Subcommittee on Oversight for resources demands that we staff
up for that committee, and the minority needs to do that as
well. Travel, essential. I concur, we have new members, most of
them from the West. And as field hearings are asked for, field
hearings are arranged and planned for, that involves travel. So
I would say the two primary areas are staffing up and travel.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Brady. Nothing?
Ms. Lofgren, do you have any questions? None?
All right, gentlemen. We appreciate your attendance here
today. We just want to tell you we really are looking at it all
here and recognizing what you are saying, we are painfully
aware of what has happened here in the last couple of cycles,
and we are just going to do our best. So we appreciate your
request and any information you have given the Committee and we
will give it every serious consideration. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. The Committee now welcomes Chairman Royce and
Ranking Member Engel of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I
would ask the official reporter to enter a page break in the
hearing record to begin a new section.
The Chairman. The Foreign Affairs Committee's jurisdiction
relates to our foreign policy, war powers, treaties, executive
agreements, and the deployment and use of U.S. Armed Forces,
the enforcement of U.N. Sanctions, arms control, disarmament
issues, and the U.S. Agency for International Development and
foreign assistance.
We want to welcome both you gentlemen. I would also tell
you that, before I recognize Chairman Royce, your respective
staff on your committee were very, very helpful to our
Committee when we were seeking information to get ourselves
prepped up here for you today. So we appreciate both the R's
and the D's, both the staff did a great job.
Mr. Royce. We overcompensate with that staff. They are
great, Chairman. But thank you.
The Chairman. So at this time I would recognize Chairman
Royce for his comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Chairman Miller. And I want to thank
Ranking Member Brady. And I want to thank the Committee members
here, as well, because when my colleague and friend Eliot Engel
and I were here 2 years ago circumstances were very different.
Then we were both new to our positions in leading the committee
and we were facing a budget cut of 12 percent, which tied us
with Financial Services and Transportation, if you will recall,
for the largest cut. And back then, the world was a much more
stable place. Since then, the wheels have fallen off.
And so it wasn't necessarily the 12 percent. But if we look
at Benghazi or we look at Syria or we look at the Russian
invasion of Ukraine that has occurred or the threats now that
emanate from Iran, what is going on across the Middle East,
even North Korea, the rise of the Islamic State, all of that,
all of our security and prosperity, unfortunately, is
increasingly at risk because of developments around the world.
And our committee has this responsibility. Our talented and
dedicated staff really works quite tirelessly to keep us and
all our members well informed, ready to react to the never-
ending crisis. We do a good job. Almost every committee member
wanted to stay on the committee, by the way, unlike previous
years. We had more people than we could possibly handle.
And we learned. And I am proud to tell you that we did more
with less, a whole lot less, $991,400. So we cut the budget by
a million dollars. We eliminated a subcommittee. We had a
reduction of three majority subcommittee staff positions and
one administration staffer. We streamlined our committee's
organizational structure to compensate for the seven vacant
staff positions on the majority side alone. And we were unable
to fill other positions because of budget cuts.
So what we also did was we moved to paperless hearings.
Saved a lot of money that way. Paperless markups. We carefully
reviewed every administrative cost. We cut or eliminated the
nonessential or duplicative services that we could find. And we
are working hard. We are working smart.
But the workload only promises to increase, and we are
certainly understaffed. Currently we have seven unfilled
positions on the committee's majority side, positions we cannot
fill under our current budget. And I understand the challenges
your committee faces, Madam Chairman, and I am not here asking
you to fund seven positions. But I am here to ask you to fund
two of these positions with an increase of only 2 percent of
our budget for 2015 and 2016.
A 2 percent increase would amount to $150,000 and would be
split two-thirds and one-third between the majority and
minority. The majority share of this $150,000 would allow me to
fill two vacant positions, ideally on oversight and the
investigation team where we don't have those staffed.
With the many current crises facing us and difficult issues
on the horizon, such as the Authorization for Use of Military
Force, which we will be taking up in my committee--and by the
way, that is just about the most consequential thing this
Congress can do. So our committee is going to continue to be
challenged.
In addition to an unexpected AUMF, we will continue to be
extremely active legislatively with bills to sanction Iran, to
handle the Iranian challenge there. We have got the reform of
the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which Eliot Engel and I
are pushing through the committee. Right now it is totally
dysfunctional. It has got to be done. We have got to
reauthorize the State Department and much more.
So last Congress we had 18 bills become law that we
actually got, not only through our committee, but through the
Senate. And in Foreign Affairs, the surprises are relentless,
as you can imagine. Eliot and I have been in western Ukraine.
We have been in eastern Ukraine. And, frankly, we have managed
to do a very good bipartisan job on oversight, including
pressuring the State Department to get that Inspector General
in place after 4 years and USAID to be cooperative with the GAO
and change their policy. But we are overmatched. And on the
majority side, we have only two full-time oversight and
investigation staff matched against all these big
bureaucracies.
So in conclusion, Foreign Affairs is a very active
committee. Members increasingly want to be engaged on that
committee. Legislation on critical issues that affect war and
peace come through what we handle. And we are lean and,
frankly, too lean, and we could use and would very much
appreciate and put to good use a very small increase in our
budget for a few more oversight and investigation staff. That
is what we have requested. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank the chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Royce follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. I would recognize now the ranking member, Mr.
Engel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member
Brady, members of the committee. Thank you very much for
inviting me to testify today. When I was coming here, I was
kidding around with some of my staff and I said I would just
sit here and sing the money song from Cabaret which talks about
money makes the world go round.
I want to thank our chairman and my friend Ed Royce for
working with me in a bipartisan manner. Ed and I have
established an excellent relationship over the past 2 years,
and I look forward to working with him as a friend and partner
for the rest of the 114th Congress.
I have always believed that foreign policy should be as
bipartisan as possible, and we have been working together with
members on both sides of the aisle to address an unprecedented
number of foreign policy challenges around the world. These
include the Iranian nuclear program, the fight against ISIS in
Iraq in Syria, Russian aggression in Ukraine, North Korea's
development of WMD, and many others.
I think that we and our staffs, both Ed and I, have gotten
a lot done for the good of the country and the world. We have
done more with less. Our staffs work together, I think, more so
than virtually any other committee in the Congress. That saves
money as well.
But now we are essentially cut to the bone. Our ability to
do good things has been hampered by significant cuts to our
committee budget. Two years ago, our budget was reduced by
almost 12 percent, which amounted to $991,000. That was the
highest percentage cut sustained by any committee. And in the 2
years before that, we were cut by 5 percent and 6.4 percent. So
that is a lot of cuts to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
These cuts have made it more difficult to hire and retain
experienced committee staff to help us navigate the wide array
of extraordinarily complex national security challenges that we
now face. And it has also made it more difficult for the
committee to conduct effective oversight, as Ed pointed out, of
the State Department, USAID, and other agencies under our
jurisdiction.
So I strongly support the chairman's request for a modest 2
percent increase in the committee budget. We came up with 2
percent to be fair. We could have come up with more and
figuring it would be cut. But we came up with a figure that we
thought was honest and took into account the fiscal restraints
that we have. Taken together with last year's 1 percent
increase, this would begin the process of rebuilding the
capacity of the committee to effectively meet our
responsibilities.
So thank you, again, for inviting me to testify. Thank you
for the work you are doing. It is very difficult for you to
listen to everybody complaining and whining, but we thank you
for it. And I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Engel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. We appreciate both of your attendance and
your comments. We really don't look at it as complaining and
whining, and I will tell you why. I have asked my staff to get
some numbers here as I have been sitting through hearings
because what we have done to ourselves in the House has not
been done by the Senate. Now, I am not going to say anything
too much about the Senate, but I will point this out because I
think it is an interesting number.
Our House committees since 2010 have actually taken a 15
percent reduction, and yet the Senate committees have had flat
funding during all of that time. So there is a big difference
of the approach to that. Actually, in the administration, there
has been a 30 percent increase during this time, which is fine.
I just point that out. It is the House that has been really
trying to lead by example, and we have as we have gone through
some very painful economic times.
On the other hand, we do have a job to do, which is
inclusive, particularly, of oversight. The American people are
looking to these respective committees to do oversight of the
various agencies, et cetera, and all the other responsibilities
as both the chairman and the ranking member have just
articulated for Foreign Affairs; and we are looking at some of
the information that you gave us. Again, you have a staff
ceiling of 88, and your average positions filled has been 75.
So you really have had some significant cuts in staff, travel,
et cetera.
I am very appreciative of the comments that you made about
the paperless hearings. We are all about trying to think about
utilizing new technologies; but obviously the big portion of
any budget is always the employees, the staff. So that is
really where it is.
I guess I would just ask you this, and perhaps you already
answered in your testimony, but if we were able to give you an
increase--and I am not saying that we can, we went all last
week one day with about half of the committees and today we
hope to finalize all of the testimony from all the respective
committees. We have some committees that are looking at flat
line and others that are asking for small increases, as are you
for 2 percent.
For those that are asking for a bit of an increase, we
would just like to ask you specifically, if we were able to do
that, would it be staff or field hearings or travel or what
have you? What really would you do with the 2 percent?
Mr. Royce. Oh, we have cut the travel and all of that down.
And as a matter of fact, I would also just mention we moved
away from the web vendor the committee had used to save $20,000
by using the House platform. So we have cut everything. So it
would all go, we go back to that question of oversight, the
added funding would be for policy personnel specifically. And
it would be for the challenges for oversight for terrorism and
the Middle East. And it would be such a great help at this
time, given what we are dealing with ISIS.
Eliot and I in the last 2 years have been in the Middle
East. And having the committee try to handle the oversight in
this, we have got one person working on two of our key
priorities, authorizing the whole State Department budget for
the first time in years. We are authorizing it, we are putting
it into the Senate, and we are reforming our badly functioning
international broadcasting, as I mentioned. He also covers
North Africa, including Egypt, including Libya. So you can
imagine the situation we are in. And the international
organizations he covers as well, like the U.N.
And I shouldn't even get started on the general counsel,
who covers not only the day-to-day procedural issues involved
in the legislative process, but also handles international
human rights, handles religious freedom. Most importantly, the
authorization for the use of U.S. military force in armed
conflict, he also handles that.
And it is not about lightening his workload, which is 16
hours a day. It is about having another body to make sure we
are checking all the boxes. We have got to be able to handle
all of this, and those boxes have to be checked before we move
the bills or bring the reforms. So we literally must have these
positions to do our function at this point.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Yeah, I would certainly concur with everything
Ed has said. And I would also say that just this morning the
White House sent down an AUMF, the authority to go to war with
ISIS in Iraq. And these are the kinds of things that are
directly involved with our committee, it is our jurisdiction.
And in a time of ongoing crisis and increasing crisis, it is
important that we have the personnel to do the kinds of work we
need, the thorough work we need.
And Ed is quite right, to have one person do so many
different things, it really diminishes the amount of time that
that person can devote to issues like the AUMF, which are right
now very much in the forefront.
The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You need to know that we, as a committee here, we are
extremely bipartisan, and we also try to give you what you need
to be able to function. Throughout the years, there have been
cuts. I am sure it is tough to find quality personnel, people
with the expertise that you need at the pay you are paying
them. They are just almost, like, giving up their time for
their country.
So we do understand that there are needs and your needs. I
like to hear it when you are increasing personnel because that
is something you could see, something that is happening, rather
than people come in and talk about travel and whatever, because
you can always kind of cut back that a little bit. But we will
fight to give you what you need to make sure that your
important committee can function.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Harper, do you have any questions? Any
questions?
Mr. Harper. No questions.
The Chairman. All right.
Gentlemen, we thank you very, very much for your time and
your assistance in getting us prepared to take a look at
everything in the aggregate and understand exactly how much
money we have and what we can do. We are taking your request
under every serious consideration, and we appreciate your
attendance here today. We will get back to you.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thanks for the job you are doing. We
appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Committee now welcomes Chairman Upton and Ranking
Member Pallone of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I would
ask the official reporter to enter a page break into the
hearing record to begin a new section.
The Chairman. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has
jurisdiction over the Nation's telecommunications, consumer
protection, food and drug safety, public health research,
environmental quality, energy policy, and interstate and
foreign commerce. It oversees multiple Cabinet-level
departments and independent agencies, including the Departments
of Energy, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and
Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration,
and the Federal Communications Commission.
So the Committee welcomes both gentlemen to be here today,
the chairman and the ranking member. Before I recognize
Chairman Upton from the great State of Michigan, I would just
comment, as I have told most of the other committee chairs as
well, both of your staff, on the Republican and Democratic
side, were very, very helpful to our staff here when we were
gathering all the information to try to get ourselves sort of
prepped up here for our hearing today. So we are appreciative
of all of that. We tried to simplify and streamline the process
a bit, so we could really get the information we needed without
having too much volume there.
But at any rate, we certainly welcome you and we look
forward to your testimony.
Chairman Upton.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And my full
statement, I will just enter into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Upton. And I know, Mr. Harper, I mean, we could save
time in the future by just saying jurisdiction over the world.
Just those two words is sufficient. And I know Mr. Harper would
agree with me, and I know Pallone as well.
We are delighted to be here. You have a very tough job,
and, frankly, we are here to help. That is our offer. We
submitted our full statement on Monday for the record. And with
the limited time, I want to make two points.
One, we have saved money over the last 4 years. In fact,
our budget is a million dollars less than it was just a couple
of years ago. But our agenda, certainly for this Congress to
get done, we do need a little bit more. We have made some
significant savings, not only fewer supplies and subscriptions,
major reductions in printing and copying, severely restricted
travel. We didn't have a single field hearing the last 2 years.
Delays in technology updates, as you know. And most of all, we
have fewer staff. In fact, we have 122 slots, personnel slots,
of which only 96 were filled at the end of 2014.
So with this budget we are asking, we are hoping to
actually go to 102 slots, still far below, in essence, almost
25 percent, 20 to 25 percent less than we were just a few years
ago.
We have a very big agenda. A number of expiring provisions
that have to be addressed. The doc fix, SGR. And that is
something we have been working on in a very strong bipartisan
way. CHIP, saving children with insurance. Legal challenges to
the Affordable Care Act. And of course the Supreme Court hears
those arguments next month. 21st Century Cures, a major
initiative that Mr. Pallone and Diana DeGette, and myself,
initiated almost a year and a half ago. But we are looking to
move this legislation forward. We released our discussion
document 2 weeks ago, 400 pages long. Lots of hearings, lots of
roundtables.
Energy infrastructure, cybersecurity, and consumer
protection. We need security clearances. We need, frankly, some
more staff. They have to handle this, and the issue seems to be
getting worse almost every day with every news report on data
breaches that are out there. We have got to have the staff
capable of helping us try to write legislation. Bipartisan. I
commend Mr. Pallone. We want to work together on this for sure.
Chemical regulation, TSCA is going to be a big issue for us to
deal within Mr. Shimkus's subcommittee. Changes in
communication and technology. Quite a bit more.
We believe that our hard work to conserve resources and our
substantial workload ahead makes the case for our request for a
small increase of $150,000 over our 2014 level, which is a 1.6
percent increase. I know that Frank and I will do everything
that we can with additional dollars if you are able to provide
them to us. But we do believe that what we have offered is a
restrained and reasonable request to help us achieve this
important work ahead. And I would note that when we did the
committee funding resolution on the floor 2 years ago, all of
us supported the bill.
I yield to Mr. Pallone.
The Chairman. I am appreciative of that.
Mr. Upton. Or yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
Pallone.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Also thank you, Mr.
Brady.
I am not going to repeat what Mr. Upton said about the
various bills and legislation that the committee will be
dealing with this year. But I do want to say that I have been
able to work--obviously as you know, I have only been doing
this for a month or so now--but I have been able to work well
with Chairman Upton and his staff in general and also in
preparing this budget submission.
And just in terms of the jurisdiction, just a little
statistic that the jurisdiction of the committee covers
consumer products and industrial sectors accounting for more
than 45 percent of the gross domestic product and employs more
than 60 percent of the workforce. So I thought that would be
interesting for you to know.
Fred and I have been working together to control and reduce
our costs whenever possible and proactively as we can. We have
been looking for ways to operate more efficiently,
understanding that we have to be mindful of that. And a glance
at our budget reveals that our committee's priority need for
both the majority and the minority is really staff. More than
95 percent of our respective budgets are allocated to higher
pay and support our staff. And, of course, for me this has been
a transition because a lot of the Democratic staff actually
were not there when I arrived. We had an election that lasted
almost a year, and many of the staff had actually left before I
even arrived. So we are not only trying to keep the staff we
have, but also we have had to hire new staff, which makes a
difference too in terms of what we do.
The funding increase obviously I support. It is a 1.6
percent increase, I think, which amounts to about $150,000.
Basically, it would enable us to afford vital technical support
and subscriptions that give our staff, information so they can
analyze current affairs and technology.
And I would say that, even though we are in the minority
and we only get one-third of this budget, I feel that that
allocation split of two-thirds for the majority and one-third
for the minority is basically equitable. Obviously, it doesn't
give us in the minority the same opportunities or resources.
But I think generally the track record shows that, even though
it is not equal, that it is equitable.
I am not going to go through all the various things that we
have to do. I think Fred mentioned them all. I think you
understand that when you talk about broad areas like health
care, energy, Internet, telecommunications, these are all
things that are very much priorities for the Congress. I mean,
in the first month on the floor alone we had several energy
bills, pipeline initiatives. We had the ACA. Now we are in the
middle of discussing net neutrality. So you can see just in 1
month how much a lot of the issues that the committee deals
with have been priorities for the Congress as a whole on the
floor, as well as in committee.
So I just wanted to say that, again, I support this
increase. It is a slight increase in the budget. I know you
probably don't like to see any increases in the budget, but I
think that it is necessary given what we have to deal with both
for staff and their support. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, both of you, very much.
[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. Actually, the amount of increase that you are
looking for, really less than 2 percent, we are going to try to
give every consideration to. We will just have to see how we
do. Of course we had hearings all last week with about half the
committees, and we hope to finish all of that today, and then
we are going to take a look at the amount of money that we have
and see what we can do here.
I have been pointing this out, and I am just going to,
because I think it is an interesting number, when you think
about how the House, has really done everything that we can to
be sensitive to the economic constraints that we have faced.
The House committees since 2010 have had a 15 percent
reduction. Now, our friends in the other chamber over there in
the Senate have actually had flat funding since 2010. So it is
a significant thing that the House has done. I would also point
out that the Executive Branch has actually had a 30 percent
increase during this time.
So we, as a separate branch of government, are charged with
oversight responsibilities, et cetera, and we really have
hobbled ourselves, I think, in a significant way. So we are
appreciative of what you are saying. I am just taking some
notes here. As you say, the staff ceiling is 122 and you had 96
positions filled. So both on the majority and minority side,
everybody has done what they needed to do, I think, to try to
get through here.
Let me just ask, though, if we were able--and we are not
making any promises here--but if we were able to give you the
increase that you are looking for, would that be--you pretty
much said it in your opening comments--but specifically staff
or what would be your priority?
Mr. Upton. Yeah, a couple of things. One, I mean, we have
some real demands for staff, some talented staff. And we are
competing with the private sector and others, we know that. But
I am asked a number of times for field hearings here or there
on very important issues, whether they be in the South or the
West, the East, the Midwest, and we have had to say no. Not a
single field hearing have we had in the last 2 years.
I can remember when I came here, I was on the Small
Business Committee and Transportation Committee, I can remember
taking then chair, of New Jersey, Bob Roe out to my district in
Grand Haven, Michigan, and talking about roads and
infrastructure. And it is important for our members to see
other parts of the country to get a better understanding,
particularly on energy and health-related issues.
You know, gosh, as we are looking at 21st Century Cures,
input from so many different stakeholders, not only disease
groups, research institutions, like MD Anderson, Cleveland
Clinic, Mayo Clinic, University of Michigan, for us to
understand better what we can do to expedite the approval of
drugs and devices that are going to impact every American
family and create the jobs that we want here.
Venture capitalists, we learned, have dropped the U.S. 50
percent, 50 percent less money from venture capitalists going
to our health sector because they have decided to go overseas
because the time of approvals here is just so delayed. So to
get a better understanding, we have a lot of new members, seven
on our side, what, five new members on--how many members on
your----
Mr. Pallone. Five.
Mr. Upton. Five new members on the Democratic side. It is
important that they get up to speed on the very complex issues
that we have. And so I think we would look at a blend of both
of those.
We have indeed tightened our belt the last couple of years.
Now, as we look at these huge issues before us that we know are
going to be able to get done, so many obviously too on a
bipartisan basis, I think that it really would help us if we
had a few more staff. And we can get you some details, some
information before the close of business, not only for this
request, but also maybe if you are able to do a little bit more
on some of the things that we might be able to do.
Appreciate your understanding.
The Chairman. That would be helpful to us, because we are
going to give, as I say, every serious consideration.
Mr. Upton. And I know we have Mr. Harper's vote on it. I
just know that we do.
The Chairman. He has got a different hat on today. He wears
both hats, though, very well,
Mr. Upton. Now vice chairman of one of our subcommittees.
The Chairman. Mr. Pallone, do you have----
Mr. Pallone. I would say the same. In other words, I
mentioned to you before that in transition we have lost a lot
of our people, frankly, just in the last year. And so as we go
around and try to find people to replace those who left we are
realizing disadvantages that are out there because we can't
offer as much money as we used to. So certainly staff would be
part of it.
But I also agree with Fred that it is important to have
some field hearings. I mean, just an example, not that it is
maybe not a good example, but yesterday I was at one of the
American Indian conferences that are held here in D.C. that I
try to go to because I was the author of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, which was part of the Affordable Care Act. And
there was a presentation by one of the tribes about their new
health center, and I realized I had--years ago I used to travel
and try to go out to Indian country and see some of the Indian
healthcare service clinics or hospitals--and I realized how
outdated I have become in the sense that I haven't been to any
or seen any of them for years. I try to go on my own time. Just
when I happen to be someplace, I will go visit.
But Fred is right. I mean, with all the innovations--and we
are really the innovation committee whether it deals with the
Internet or health care or whatever--the fact that we never go
out to see anything is certainly not good.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. No.
The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Can you think of something nice I can say to my
other chairman, Chairman Miller?
The Chairman. You can tell him what a wonderful State he
comes from.
Mr. Harper. We hear that quite often. But I think
Mississippi would be a great place for a future field hearing,
Mr. Chairman, because we have the Kemper County facility that
soon will be up and running. We have nuclear power over near
the Mississippi River. We have a lot of hydraulic fracturing.
And the food is much better in Mississippi. So I want to go
ahead and include that.
Mr. Upton. The ads say the food is good down there.
Mr. Harper. There you go. So we have lots of good things
there, yes.
Mr. Pallone. I didn't mention, but the new hospital and
clinic that I was referencing was the Mississippi Choctaw.
Mr. Harper. Yeah.
Mr. Pallone. They are going to have a dedication on March
8, I think, or March 2. I am was going to try--I am going to
visit Selma with the Faith and Politics Institute and John
Lewis----
Mr. Harper. Right.
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. And I was going to see if I could
sneak down there.
Mr. Harper. I saw Chief Anderson yesterday, and we plan to
be there for that. I hope you will be able to come and join us
that day.
Mr. Pallone. Going to try.
Mr. Harper. There is a 1:06 flight out of Jackson that we
can make. So you might want to get a hold on that flight to get
back up here.
It is remarkable when I listen to both of you discuss areas
of jurisdiction, it is the world. It is everything. But the
field hearings, I do think, as you discussed, would be very
important, if you get additional funding, and that will allow
that to take place, whether it is going to visit a hospital or
going to Yucca Mountain or some other nuclear power facility or
something that is in the field. I think that would be great.
And looking at the number of hearings that we conduct, it is
almost impossible to keep up without some more help.
And so I certainly want to commend you for that and would
hope that we could move into that direction on some field
hearings if it is approved.
Mr. Upton. We have six subcommittees, and John Shimkus is
the able chair of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.
And he has asked----
Mr. Harper. Who is the vice chair of that subcommittee?
Mr. Upton. It is a very important committee.
Mr. Harper. Okay. I am just checking, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. But he has asked if he could take some members
out just to look at Yucca. It has been quite some time. I went
out there about 15 years ago when I chaired the Oversight
Subcommittee. But, again, without an increase I have to say no.
Mr. Harper. Thank you both for your time and input.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Again, we thank the chairman and the ranking member. You
have been very informative, made a great presentation, very
persuasive. Of course, we have a limited amount of funds. So we
are going to take all of that into consideration when we
conclude here today and see where we can go with all of this.
But, again, we are going to give it every serious
consideration. You have made an excellent presentation. Thank
you. We will get back to you.
The Committee now welcomes Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking
Member Cummings of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. I would ask the official report to enter a break page
into the hearing record to begin a new section.
The Chairman. The Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the
government procurement process, federal personnel system, the
Postal Service, and many, many, many other matters. But its
primary responsibility is oversight of virtually everything
that the government does, from national security to homeland
security grants, from Federal workforce policies, to regulatory
reform, from information technology procurement at individual
agencies, to governmentwide data security standards.
So I know they are going to have a very busy, busy session.
Before I recognize the chairman, I would just mention to you,
as I have to most of the other committee chairs and ranking
members as well, both the Republican and Democrat members of
your staffs were very, very helpful to our staff when we were
trying to gather up all of our information to be prepared for
your presentation here today. So we certainly are very
appreciative of that. I think we have got most of your info
here.
I would recognize Chairman Chaffetz.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to Ranking
Member Brady. We really do appreciate it.
I am pleased to be here representing the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform along with my friend and
colleague, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings. Our mission is to
ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the
Federal Government and all of its agencies. And as the primary
oversight and investigative committee in the House, we provide
a meaningful and often the only check on the role and the power
of the executive branch.
Genuinely good government oversight requires a committee
commitment to expose mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse. We
identify problems, shine light on them, propose reforms to
improve efficiency and effectiveness and the transparency of
the government. We are called the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee for a reason. We need to work even harder and
do more on the government reform side of things.
This Congress we are reorienting the committee's focus to
function through and with our six subcommittees. Our goal is to
grow the organization's capacity and ability to perform its
constitutional oversight and investigative duties beyond what
we have been able to accomplish in the past. The committee's
new structure will also allow us to strengthen our
relationships with the oversight partners that we have at the
Government Accountability Office and throughout the community
of 72 inspectors general who at their disposal have more than
13,000 people.
We rely heavily on the GAO, with thousands of employees. We
rely heavily on the inspectors general, again 72 of them,
employing more than 13,000 people. We gather that information.
It is very pivotal for us. When they are able to do their work,
we are able to do our work.
Mr. Cummings and I will continue the committee's practice
of being a safe haven for these inspectors general. Billions of
dollars are wasted each year by the Federal Government, and the
inspectors general are the taxpayers' first line of defense. We
want to ensure that they are able to perform their duties
efficiently and without interference.
We are committed to redoubling the committee's effort on
reform. It isn't enough to only put a spotlight on the failures
of the government. We intend to help close the loop and do so
as much as possible in a bipartisan way.
I have asked my members on the committee and the committee
staff to look at each problem we encounter through the lens of
authorizing an appropriating committee. To truly do our work,
we have got to work with the committees of authorization and
the appropriators, and that triangulation, as I call it, I
think can lead to better success on both sides of the aisle.
The committee currently has 45 members, and we have grown
and expanded. I know on the majority side we have nine freshmen
members. As has been the case since the 108th Congress, our
minority receives 33 percent of staff and budget funds to be
used at the discretion of the ranking member. In our budget
request we are not asking for any increases. We propose to
continue to operate at the current levels, both with respect to
funding and staffing. I am sure, like every committee, we would
like to have an increase. But the budget that we have put
forward and the plan that we have has us similar to what we had
in the past.
In recent years, the committee has absorbed significant
budget cuts but has nonetheless played a very meaningful role
in the largest and most important oversight initiatives facing
the Congress. It is an honor and privilege for me to serve as
the chairman.
And with that, Madam Chair, I would yield back and be happy
to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
[The statement of Mr. Chaffetz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mr. Cummings.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member Brady, and members of the committee. I want to thank you
for this opportunity today.
The Oversight Committee is beginning a new chapter. With
Representative Chaffetz as our chairman, we are embarking on
the 114th Congress with many new positive changes, I am very
glad to report. For example, the chairman has directed his
staff to work in a more bipartisan way to conduct our
committee's investigations. He has adopted policies to solicit
significant input from the minority. And he has listened to our
concerns and comments. In addition, he now has a standing
policy for staff to work with our staff on drafting committee
letters, allowing us to review them before they go out. I
cannot begin to tell you how much this is a breath of fresh
air.
On our side, we have been able to respond to these
improvements by supporting the chairman's investigations much
more strongly because we have input and we are being respected.
Although it is only February, we have already agreed to sign
dozens of request letters on a truly bipartisan basis. We have
announced committee hearings jointly, I have signed numerous
witness invitations with the chairman, and we have held
bipartisan meetings with the White House and federal agencies.
In turn, Chairman Chaffetz has been open to ideas that we
raise. Just this week, for example, we sent a joint letter from
me and the chairman, along with the chairman and ranking member
of the National Security Subcommittee, asking for a legal
justification behind a recent decision by the Department of
Defense to start classifying information about spending in
Afghanistan that previously had not been classified. We brought
this request to the chairman, and he agreed to join because we
are starting to build greater trust between our two sides. And
this is the way, I believe, that Congress should operate and
the American people want us to operate.
Going forward, we have also agreed to adopt a document
protocol, which is something the Parliamentarian strongly
recommends, and our staffs are working on that now. We are also
marking up our oversight plan at a business meeting later
today, and we are working to ensure that it will reflect the
priorities of not just Republicans or Democrats, but of the
American people. The American people want to know that we have
got their back.
And I have said to the chairman, and I am sure he agrees,
is that not only must we investigate, not only must we reform,
not only must we make sure that government works effectively
and efficiently, but at the end of every day we should have
done something to improve the lives of the people that sent us
here.
Finally, the chairman and I also agree very strongly on
preserving our committee's limited budget, which has been cut
repeatedly. Over the past 4 years, our budget has been reduced
by more than $2 million, a cut of more than 20 percent. And I
agree with the chairman, I just want to hold the line. I don't
want our budget reduced from what it has been. I know my staff
very much appreciated the 1 percent increase we received last
year, but the fact of the matter is that we simply cannot
sustain these kinds of cuts without affecting our core mission
of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
So today I urge you to recognize the unique nature of the
Oversight Committee, which saves the American taxpayers far
more than it spends. I ask that you help us fulfill our
critical mission and role, and fund us at the levels that will
allow us to hire the necessary staff, keep talented and
experienced individuals, and continue rooting out waste, fraud,
and abuse.
And with that I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Let me just say at the outset, as you mentioned some of the
various statistics you were looking at with your staff ceiling
of 118 and you are averaging 98 positions filled, we are very
aware of the kinds of cuts that all the committees, quite
frankly, have taken over the last couple of cycles, yours as
well. I just give you this to give you a flavor of what has
happened really here in the House where we really have taken to
heart trying to be fiscally conservative and cutting our
respective Members' budgets, as well as the House committees as
well. We actually, since 2010, have taken a 15 percent
reduction, while the Senate--God love them on the other side
here--has had flat funding during all of that time while we
have taken 15 percent. We are a separate chamber with oversight
responsibilities, and yet we have really hobbled ourselves.
Also the Executive Branch has had a 30 percent increase during
much of that time.
So I just point those out because what you are saying and
what we have heard from the other chairmen and ranking members
is absolutely true.
Now, I am appreciative, I know we all are, of the fact that
you have asked for level funding because we have such a finite
amount of funds. This Committee last week had a full day of
listening to about half the committee chairs and ranking
members last week, and we hope to finalize all of that today,
and then we are going to really sit down and see what we need
to do, what we think we can do.
Let me ask just you a question. If we were able to give you
a little bit of extra cash--and we are not promising that--but
if we were able to do that--I would ask the chairman first--
would you really look at staff? Are you thinking about field
hearings? Or what specifically, if we could give you, I am not
going to throw a number out because I don't know what that
would be--but if we were able to plus you up a bit, what would
you look at?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Personnel is the number one issue. We have such a broad
swatch of responsibility. Keep in mind, between the GAO and the
IG community, they issue thousands of reports. We are also,
with the administration in the first 4 years, it is actually a
number that was lower than some previous administrations, but
there were more than 13,000 rules that were introduced.
Somebody needs to look at that, and we need professional staff
in order to look at that.
I do think we also need more investigators that can get out
into the fields. So part of that would probably go to some
travel. Everything doesn't happen here in Washington, D.C., and
it does take personnel, in a bipartisan way, for that staff to
go out and do and conduct some of those investigations and
speak with people.
Third on that list would probably be some field hearings,
which I think are very warranted. For instance, we have an
Interior Subcommittee. We are dealing with oil, gas, EPA
issues. A lot of that happens out West, and it is very
difficult to have those hearings and really see, feel, touch,
understand, and hear from locals when you are dealing with
interior issues.
So those are just a couple of examples off the top of our
head. But personnel would be right at the top of the list to
fill those investigative needs and to truly read the reports.
When somebody goes and spends a year of their life
investigating something, we think you have a duty and a
responsibility to digest that and make the most of it, because
those recommendations in large part are just going up on a
shelf, they are not being heeded.
Mr. Cummings. When I took responsibility of the committee a
few years ago, I came in and we were cut. We were cut at that
time, and literally we reduced our people's salaries, some of
them by 10 percent. And these are hard-working people, many of
them with children, having a very difficult time. So I am
always looking at ways to make sure that people are properly
compensated.
But in addition to all the things that the chairman just
said, I agree with all of that, and staff is just to me number
one. We have a lot of investigations going on. We need quality
people. We need to be able to keep quality people. And I will
tell you, if there is anybody in this Congress that fights
harder for employees of the government, it is me, because I see
what they go through and I see the flak that they take over and
over again, particularly in my committee.
So, again, I am looking quality people, people who are
dedicated, with a passion, and who want to be about the
business of doing the kind of things that we are trying to
achieve here.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
It is a big difference from 2 years ago when you came in
front of us. And it is refreshing. But I am a little confused,
which is not hard to do. But if you give us a statement on why
and who and where and how you would spend that money if we got
money for you, why didn't you ask for more?
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, we understood that these are tough,
difficult times. We put forward a budget we thought would be
reasonable. I am brand new to this chairmanship. But there is
certainly a need, but this is the one that we put forward.
Mr. Cummings. Let me say this. I think one of the things
that I talk about a lot in my district is low expectations and
how so often we predict that something is not going to happen.
And if you don't think it is going to happen, it is not going
to happen, if you don't try.
So I think, to be frank with you, I came in here saying to
myself we have got to hold the line with what we have got
because I have seen the trend, and the trend is downward. So I
think in part for me it was that I didn't want to come in here
and insult the committee, I wanted to make sure that we at
least got what we have, because I didn't want to go down. That
is a very straightforward answer.
Mr. Brady. All due respect, all the other committees have
been insulting us then, because they are all asking for some
more money.
Mr. Cummings. Well, we will take it, I can tell you that.
Mr. Brady. Well, when we present this and try to fight for
people that are asking for money, we have to fight for you, and
it seems to me that you are not fighting for yourself. I don't
know if you are going to go to school on me or not, but you
should put some requests in for some more money because then
you come into the category of people that are asking for more
money and some people that are not. The people that are not are
just going to be kind of like dismissed.
And I do believe, and I do know what you do, and I am
really pleased to have this discussion with you and have your
presentation, altogether different, you weren't here, than it
was 2 years ago. And we are really glad to hear that you are
working together because it is an important function that you
do. We would really like to see you get the wherewithal to make
sure you can do your job. That was just a little bit of
confusion on my part.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. I thank my ranking member.
I would just point out that it has been about half and
half. About half the committees have asked for level funding,
the other half have asked for a bit of an increase, some a
little more than others.
But one thing, and I know the ranking member and I share
this, just because you didn't ask for an increase and really
tried to hold level funding, we are not going to hold that
against you. Okay? We will take that into consideration as
well.
Obviously as a new chair as well, just trying to get your
arms around, of course you have been on the committee a long
time, but really now really looking at staff and all these
kinds of things. So as I say, we are very aware. I read you the
statistics here, just because I think it is interesting, to see
how much the House has taken our own hit, right? We have hit
ourselves on all of this, and yet we really have hobbled
ourselves and our ability to conduct oversight, which is our
mission also.
So with that, I don't know if there is any----
Mr. Brady. Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Brady. Just to add to that, just to agree with her,
that is why we wanted to get you on the record to say that if
you did get more money what you would do with it.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. We want more money.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We
will get back to you. We will give it every consideration.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I now recess the hearing, and the Committee
will reconvene subject to the call of the chair, after votes I
think. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will be called back to order.
The Committee now welcomes Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
Member Smith of the Committee on Armed Services. I would ask
the official reporter to enter a page break into the hearing
record to begin a new section.
The Chairman. The Committee on Armed Services has
jurisdiction over our defense policy generally, our ongoing
military operations, the organization and reform of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, our
counterdrug programs, our acquisition and industrial base
policies, and the Department of Energy's nonproliferation
programs, and detainee affairs and policies.
We want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member
for being here. Before I do recognize you, let us just say that
all of your staff was very, very helpful with our staff when we
were trying to gather information for us to be prepared to
discuss your request here today. So we certainly are very
appreciative of that. I think we have all the information that
you gave us. At this time the chair would recognize Chairman
Thornberry for his presentation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you and
the distinguished ranking member for having Mr. Smith and I.
I think both of us are fully aware of the budget situation
facing the Federal Government, and thus Congress. And I
certainly endorse the push to make better use of our taxpayer
dollars.
On our committee, as Mr. Brady well knows, we are also
aware of the security situation facing our country, our
military, and thus our committee. There has been testimony in
front of Congress that we have not faced such a wide array of
serious threats to our national security since at least the end
of World War II, and some people believe ever.
And so those things range from newly resurgent nuclear
states, to the terrorism we all see on the news, to even things
like Ebola, where it was the military that was sent to try to
contain this naturally occurring disease, but at the cost of
some millions of dollars.
And so the Constitution puts on the Congress, and thus on
our committee, a significant responsibility for helping
provide, to build the Armed Forces that are needed to meet the
security needs of the country. And I guess one key point I
would like to leave you with is, with so many diverse threats
facing our country, that puts a lot of work on our committee.
For me, I believe it is essential that reform be a major
element of what our committee does. And by that I mean
personnel reform. We just received a report of a commission to
look at the total scope of pay and benefits which go to our
military folks, and they have a number of recommendations for
reform. I mean acquisition reform, how the military buys goods
and services, which not only is more expensive and takes longer
than it should, but does not give us the sort of agility we
need to deal with adversaries that move very quickly.
Reform also means organizational reform and reducing
overhead. These are major areas that if Congress doesn't push,
it is not going to happen. So at least as far as the majority
staff, I want to have five people devoted exclusively to
reform, and that is what it is going to take in order for us to
do the work to prod the Department of Defense to make these
changes. Again, unlike other departments in the government, if
Congress doesn't do it, reform is not going to happen with the
Department of Defense. History has shown that. Goldwater-
Nichols is the most prominent recent example, but the whole
history, from the National Security Act of 1947, et cetera, is
that it was Congress that had to make the changes. And to make
those changes, it is going to take more resources.
So essentially where we are is that we have got to choose,
with the current rate of funding, we have got to choose between
doing the reform or doing the oversight and our regular work.
Just a reminder about what our regular work is, it is oversight
of half the discretionary budget of the Federal Government. It
means that for the last 53 years we have passed and the
President has signed into law a National Defense Authorization
Act. Last year, that NDAA had 800 provisions. It authorized
over $600 billion. It had 270 amendments offered in the
committee markup and 325 amendments were offered on the floor.
That is our regular business. And without more resources,
we have got to choose basically between our regular business
and doing the reform effort.
There are a number of specific issues that we can talk
about needs, including, by the way, classified phones. I have
never yet gotten a classified call in our committee spaces when
it has gone through with less than four attempts. Now, the
people at the Pentagon get tired of trying to call you if you
keep hanging up on them four, five times in a row. Just as an
example about equipment deferrals that affect our operations
that we have to pay attention to.
One other fun fact. According to Google Analytics, if you
look at our House Armed Services Committee Web site, the top
three locations where people come and visit our Web site are
Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow. Now, that is just the environment
in which we have to operate, but it also shows the importance,
I think, of the work we do.
Meanwhile, we have the largest committee in Congress. We
are the only committee in Congress that has more members than
staff--obviously, we have got the lowest ratio of staff to
members--charged with overseeing half the discretionary budget
at a time of unprecedented change.
So my request is that we have an increase in our budget so
that we can do our regular job in a time of unprecedented
change, as well as the reforms that absolutely have to happen,
and that comes with added people.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Thornberry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
Smith.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Smith of Washington. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't
say it much better than the chairman said it, so I will try to
be brief. But we do a lot of work on the committee, beginning
with the fact that we are the one committee that every year
passes a bill. And Mac outlined it is no small piece of
legislation. It goes through regular order, something that is
unrecognizable in, I think, just about every other committee.
But we go through the committee process of all the amendments,
a 12-, 15-hour markup, and then on the floor and forward. And
it is the staff that is doing a lot of that work, figuring out
what those amendments are, answering questions of members. It
is a lot of work to get that done.
And then, yes, we have the reform agenda. And then we do
exercise an oversight function. I realize that the Government
and Oversight Committee has an Armed Services or national
security branch, but we in the last few years--I remember when
I first came to Congress and was first a member of the
committee back in the late 1990s this wasn't much of an issue.
But now Libya, ISIL, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran negotiations,
all this stuff comes up, and we have to deal with it in
addition to that piece of legislation that we work on every
year that is so important. And the size of the committee the
chairman mentioned, and the fact that we are allotted 71 staff
members at the moment, we can only afford 59.
So that is just a long way of saying we need more money, I
think, to adequately to do the job that we are being asked to
do, and to give the staff members the support that they need,
particularly in the government reform agenda that the chairman
mentioned, we need to dedicate staff to that, and that is
incredibly important right now in this budget environment.
So I will keep it to that and just otherwise concur in the
statements of my chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, both of you, very much.
[The statement of Mr. Smith of Washington follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. In particular, when you are mentioning the
staff, I was looking down at our notes that your staff had
given us, that you have got a staff ceiling of 71, you have got
an average of 63 positions filled.
I would say this. You have asked for one of the highest
increases. Our Committee last week, we went through about half
the committees, and the chairs and ranking members of the
committees last week, and we are hopefully going to finish
everything here today so that we have an opportunity to take a
look at our finite pie of dollars that we have; and see where
we think we can go, and what we can do.
Just for full transparency, we have got about half of the
committees asking for level funding and others that are asking
for a bit of an increase. Yours is a little bit higher than
some. But, as you say, you have articulated very well what your
needs are and why you are requesting what you have.
I would just say this, just because I think it is
interesting, because the House really, I think, has tried to be
very fiscally conservative, not only with our own individual
MRAs, but certainly with the committee structure as well.
Everybody has not done the same thing here on the Hill. I will
just point this out, since the 110th Congress the House had a
15 percent reduction in committees, 15 percent. The Senate, God
love them, has actually had a 4 percent increase during that
time. So not only did they not take any reduction, they
actually have had a bit of an increase.
It makes a difference. We are equal chambers of Congress,
and we do have our responsibilities for oversight, as both of
you gentlemen have articulated very well. I will just make one
other comment, because the Executive Branch has actually had a
30 percent increase since 2008.
So we on this Committee are giving every serious
consideration to the proposal that you have made before us. I
am not sure what we are going to be able to do for you, but we
certainly are, as I said, giving it every serious
consideration. You already have, I think, answered my question,
but just specifically, if we were able to give you what you
were looking at, or something in that ballpark, it is
principally just staff that you are really looking to staff up
for the oversight? I think the chairman mentioned you were
looking at five positions in particular?
Mr. Thornberry. Yes, ma'am. And I might just mention that
even if we got our full request, we would not be back to where
we were in 2010.
But just to give you a little feel for it, on the majority
side I have got one staff member oversees all aviation
programs. Now, that is everything from the Long Range Bomber to
the JSF F-35, the biggest acquisition program in history, to
the A-10. What am I trying to say? The refuelers, the UAVs.
That is one person. I have got one other person who does all
Navy programs other than aviation. I just want you to get a
sense for how thinly we are stretched.
I have got one lawyer. And we are going to have a major
responsibility to deal with this AUMF, even though it is not
primarily in our jurisdiction, but yet how it affects the
military, et cetera, that is in our job.
So essentially I have got a choice, and under the current
resources it is reform or the oversight. And there is no
choice. We have to do reform or it is not going to get done. So
all of these different programs are just not going to have the
oversight. Now, maybe the Pentagon would like that, but I don't
think we are doing the country very well.
The Chairman. I am appreciative of that, particularly when
you were mentioning about the acquisition reform. Sometimes you
have to spend a dime to make a buck, really, and have the
ability to make those kinds of reforms to the process.
Goodness, we are talking about billions and billions of
dollars.
So, Mr. Smith, you have any comment at all?
Mr. Smith of Washington. I have nothing to add to that.
The Chairman. Okay. Very good.
My ranking member, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman,
as you know, I am on this committee and I am on the Armed
Services Committee, and I am probably one of the most fortunate
Members of Congress because I am on two committees that are
totally, totally impartial. I mean, they work together
extremely well, the members do. Not sure I know all the members
and who they are. I know most of the staff members, and they
never treat me--I don't know, other than where I see them
sitting right now, I don't know who they work for. I mean, they
work for us. Whether it be the Republican side or the
Democratic side, they are always ready and able to do the best
that they can to answer any questions that we have. It is a
completely bipartisan committee with members and with staff.
And I would like to echo what the chairman and the ranking
member just said. It is hard to keep these kind of people, the
dedicated people that we do have, because I think every one of
them that I know of, they could probably do much, much better
on the outside. But because they are dedicated and they are
committed to what we do on that committee which keeps them
there. And not only are we cutting their pay or keeping them
the same--hopefully not cutting--it is hard to attract anybody,
any new people to come to work because we are not being able to
adequately pay them and we have given them a whole lot of work
to do. But they are dedicated. And I couldn't think of any
other committee--naturally, I am biased--that we can hopefully
look at and try to come up with whatever we can come up with to
be able to adequately let you do your job on that committee, a
real important committee.
So I thank you for what you do, and it is an honor and
pleasure to be serving with you on that committee also.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith.
You mentioned the communications issues that you are having.
And just for my reference, is the House telecom office the
office that sets up the classified lines or does that go
through another entity?
Mr. Thornberry. It is the House Security Office, really,
that should be responsible for secure telephones. And we don't
have a lot. We have limited SCIF, sensitive compartmented
information facility space, but our phones that we use for
classified calls are so old and so out of synch with what the
Pentagon has that they just don't work, as I say, four out of
five times. And it is never the first four when it does work.
And I can give you other examples.
As the gentleman knows, I am new to this job. And so when I
started looking at the budget and I am walking around all the
offices looking at the equipment and so forth, frankly, I was
shocked. I don't know how the former chairman and Mr. Smith and
the staff directors have done what they have done. Our staff
has not had a COLA or a merit increase in 5 years. And then we
have these equipment issues that just adds to the frustration
of their job. I am amazed, really, they have held it together.
Mr. Smith of Washington. Just in talking about the COLA
issue, the one other issue that we have not brought up yet is
for a couple of years, I think previous year, our staff members
2 years ago had to take furlough days, had to take pay cuts. I
don't think any other committee actually did that because they
had room in their budget. We didn't have any room in our
budget.
So not only has our staff not received any COLAs or any pay
increases, but a number of those staff actually had to take
furlough days, up to, I think, it was like 15 or 20 days out of
the year. So they took a pay cut 2 years ago as a result of
that. That is just the pressure we are under given the amount
of money we have and the amount of work that there is to be
done.
Mr. Davis. I am sympathetic. I am new to this job, too,
here, but I am not new to the House operations, being a staffer
for 16 years. And that is why I am asking the questions about
who would be responsible. Because that falls back on our
committee to make sure that they are responsive to you if they
are under our jurisdiction.
And I am sympathetic to the communications issues. And the
reason why I am asking is I see that you are going to be able
to take a lot of this increase--proposed increase, if you were
to get it--and bring on new staff, make sure the existing staff
you have are up to the standards that we know need to exist on
your committee.
My fear is that under your telecommunications, under your
communications budget request that might not be enough to
actually upgrade your telecom equipment. And I want to know if
there is anybody that has estimated so that we can make sure
that you have the ability to do that, because, frankly, I am
offended the Pentagon has anything better than us, especially a
telephone.
Mr. Thornberry. Just to clarify, we are not talking about
replacing the whole phone system. The Intelligence Committee is
a different thing. They have a lot more classified phones down
in their SCIF spaces in the basement of the Visitors Center. We
only have a handful of these classified phones inside our
conference rooms that are SCIFfed. I can't tell you off the top
of my head what that cost would be. It is not huge. But I guess
I cite it because, number one, it uses an incredible amount of
time while you are trying to get a call through. And secondly,
it is an example of what has had to happen over the last few
years just because things have not been able to be upgraded.
Mr. Davis. I am going to yield back the balance of my time
real quick, I know we are going to votes, but could you have
your staff get back to me on the procurement process for this?
I am just trying to make sure I understand the process.
Mr. Thornberry. I think it is the Security Office that is
responsible for it, but I will get back to you once I get that.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome again. Good to see you again. I saw you just a
little bit ago. And I echo the same comments Mr. Brady makes in
regards to this committee. The bipartisanship actually has been
really refreshing on Armed Services.
And just to give everybody an idea, the breadth of what
Armed Services does, it is all the Armed Services of the United
States, but it is about security of this Nation. And we have to
make decisions, budgetary decisions, we will be doing the NDAA.
There are a lot of things that we have to do. But one of them,
though, is so staff-driven. The information that we get, and
you are right, I don't know the Republican staff versus the
Democratic staff because everybody is helpful to all the
members on the committee.
And I guess yesterday first ever, I hate to call it a
retreat because you don't want to ever talk about retreat, but
yesterday we had a retreat, for the first time that I am aware
of, where we actually talked about issues that are going to be
facing us and how can we deal with those in the future. And we
had some pretty sharp folks come in a classified setting and an
unclassified setting to tell us where we need to go. And it
really convinced, I think, a lot of Members maybe who were
unsure of how we should move forward and what the cost is to
actually do what we need to do to keep America safe. And the
threats are so diverse.
So this committee, everybody has bitten the bullet to say
in regards to reducing staff and reducing staff costs. But at
the end of the day I am fearful that everyone on the Armed
Services Committee, whether it is working conditions, whether
it is a telephone that works or doesn't work, but at the end of
the day it is about how do I support my family. And these guys
and gals could go out into the real world and make probably a
whole lot more money. But I think what keeps them here is their
loyalty to this country and their loyalty to actually coming up
with a product that makes America safer, not weaker.
And I think this is a request that really should be taken
into account. Of all the things that we do--and everything that
we do is important, diminish no committee--but this is one that
you have got to get right. This is the one that has the actual
ability, if we get it wrong, to have a direct impact on
everything else that we do, everything else that is important
to us in this country, whether it is a social program or
anything else. If we don't get it right in this committee, that
will degrade everything else that we want to do and the
prosperity of this country, because what we can do, and the
projection of force that we talk about does make us more
prosperous. It opens up markets and keeps markets open for us
that we wouldn't have without a strong and vibrant military.
But to get to that is about oversight. And the chairman has
talked about acquisition reform and getting the Pentagon to be
responsive and not being a rubber stamp for the Pentagon. And I
think that is the biggest thing that I always felt. Sometimes
it is just like, well, we got to do it because they asked.
Well, no. I mean, we are the civilian oversight of the Pentagon
to make sure that the dollars that the American public pony up
every year are going and getting the best bang for our buck.
And I think that is where the oversight portion of this
committee is so important, more important than a lot of other
committees, I personally think.
So I just want to be on record that I think that this
committee of all should really get the request that is being
asked for. I don't see it as being just parochial to the Armed
Services Committee. But I do think it is important to this
whole country.
With that I yield back, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. I thank both these gentlemen who are on the
House Armed Services Committee for their strong advocacy for
this committee, and the chair recognizes Ms. Comstock.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to
echo the emphasis of my colleagues on how important this
committee is. I do appreciate the nature of what you are
working on and the importance, with all the challenges we have
facing us. So thank you for your leadership on this. And I too
would agree with Mr. Nugent's suggestion that this is going to
be one of the most important things we do over the next several
years. And I know in my district how important this is and how
I hear from the defense community all the time. And so happy to
work with you on these issues. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank both the gentlemen for coming.
Obviously, you have some great support here, and no wonder. But
it is a bit of a request that you are asking for and we are
going to look at it very closely and certainly are well aware
of what challenges the world is facing, our country is facing,
and the kinds of responsibilities that your committee has. We
want to make sure we can resource you to the optimal that we
have available funds to.
So we will get back to you. Thank you very much for coming.
We appreciate it.
The Committee now welcomes Chairman McCaul and Ranking
Member Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security. I would
ask the official reporter to enter a page break into the
hearing record as we begin a new section.
The Chairman. Established in 2002, the Committee on
Homeland Security has jurisdiction to provide congressional
oversight for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and to
better protect the American people against a possible terrorist
attack. Much of what they do, of course, is unknown, depending
on circumstances around our Nation and around the globe
certainly. I am very pleased to be able to serve on this
committee as well, so I am familiar with the workings of the
committee.
I would just say to both the chairman and the ranking
member that both the Republican and Democratic staff on the
committee were very helpful to our staffs when we were trying
to put all of our information together so that we were prepared
to hear your presentation today. So we are very appreciative of
that.
With that, we are going to be voting, I guess, in about 10
minutes, so we should have plenty of time to get through here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. McCaul. Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me and the
ranking member, thank you, Ranking Member Brady, for this
opportunity to testify this afternoon on the work and goals of
the Committee on Homeland Security. I am pleased to be sitting
next to my ranking member, who is equally committed to the
national security of this Nation and has been a good partner in
that effort.
This committee faces, I believe, continuous and growing
resource constraints in light of the dynamic security threats,
recent world events, and key national policy debates. We expect
this threat environment to become more challenging over the
next Congress. Our committee is at the forefront of overseeing
the U.S. Government's response to an alarming rise in homegrown
and foreign terrorist threats, meeting the challenge of
securing America's borders, countering the acute increase in
cyber attacks against the United States Government and private
sector networks, especially in light of the Sony and Anthem
attacks this last month.
The confluence of these challenges has placed a noticeable
strain on our committee's resources. We have been charged with
responding to the surging threat of domestic radicalization and
the threat from foreign fighter terrorists. I just came out of
a hearing with the ranking member talking about that very
issue. Both issues have become more pressing in the wake of the
attacks in Paris, Sidney, Ottawa, and Nigeria, and the
destruction of terrorist plots here in the United States. In
fact, I believe there have been over 15 ISIS plots, many
successful, many not. But this trend is not going to decrease,
in my judgment, it will increase.
The 113th Congress was productive. We held almost 100
hearings, 8 field hearings, passed 31 bills, and 28 were
considered and passed on the House floor. Most importantly, we
had for the time cyber legislation, landmark cyber legislation
that was passed.
More important than the numbers is the impact the
legislation and oversight will have on the Nation. Our chemical
facilities will be better protected, travelers will not be
overcharged by TSA, and the Nation's veterans will be treated
with the dignity and respect that they deserve at our airports.
Additionally, cyber threat information will be enhanced and
improved, and the workforce will be strengthened to combat this
threat.
In the 113th it became clear to this committee and to the
Department itself that DHS is not optimally organized and
equipped to deal with the escalation in security challenges.
DHS has never been reauthorized by Congress since it was
established in 2002. To me, that is an amazing statement that I
don't think many Members of Congress are aware of, that this
Department has never been reauthorized by the United States
Congress.
DHS badly needs legislative fixes. It is one of the highest
priorities of the committee to draft and enact the first-ever
DHS reauthorization that will allow us to implement these much-
needed reforms at the Department.
In the 114th, the committee will launch a concerted effort
to reauthorize, as I stated. This undertaking is of major
national security significance, and will include the following:
a full review of the Homeland Security Act, briefings with all
of DHS' main offices, development of new authorizing
legislation and appropriate reforms for each of the DHS
components, close coordination through the process with House
committees sharing jurisdictional interest, which as the
chairwoman knows is a challenge because of the jurisdictional
problems that we face. It will involve close coordination with
the Senate, and the markup of authorization through regular
order.
This will take a counsel to work full-time on the activity
on both the majority and minority sides. And with additional
funds, we will be able to hire these personnel.
The committee has created a long-term investigations unit
that has already launched a handful of investigations that will
be completed and released in 2015. In fact, we announced at
this morning's hearing the creation of a task force to
investigate both foreign fighters traveling abroad and also the
homegrown violent extremists. This growth of lawless terrorist
safe havens is a threat to the homeland.
We will also be investigating cybersecurity, biological
attack preparedness and response, and also waste, fraud, and
abuse within the Department.
Finally, in an October 26 article in Politico, Leader
McCarthy stated that the House committees should be doing far
more field work. I agree with him. I just recently visited the
9/11 Museum in New York, which I would recommend to all the
committee members. And they have agreed to open up their
facility for a field committee hearing. But as this committee
knows, that will also take more resources.
Field work is essential to gathering data to conduct
rigorous oversight, have the right policy questions, and inform
legislation.
In order to fulfill the mission of this committee and
accomplish these priorities, we are requesting a marginal
increase of 1.7 next year over our 113th authorized level. If
granted, we would primarily focus these on the key hires that I
mentioned. And in addition to personnel compensation and field
work, we are requesting minimal changes to funding for other
categories.
So I know our time is limited. I want to thank the
committee for the opportunity to appear here before you today
to talk about the great work of this committee. And with that,
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank the chairman.
[The statement of Mr. McCaul follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member Brady. I am in full agreement with my chairman's earlier
statements. It is no question that the cuts of 2011, 2012, and
2013 to the Committee on Homeland Security's budget was a
problem. And part of what we have here today with this request
for additional funding so we can in effect conduct the
committee's business.
Our biggest challenge is several, Madam Chair. Our enemy is
not the enemy we started with. We have to have good staff, we
have to conduct good work. We have to have the ability to
travel, to do field hearings. All those things require
resources.
The chair and I have historically managed the money very
well of the committee. We have even in our field hearings
reduced the number of staff going on the hearings to try to
make sure we stay within the budget. But a lot of those
reductions have not allowed us to really do effective committee
work. So what you have before you today is a request for a
small increase. We could do more, but we recognize the times we
are in.
Cybersecurity, a major effort for this committee. We passed
three bills as we were going out last session. We will leave
this meeting and go meet with our Senate counterparts to talk
about cybersecurity today. We need the resources to make sure
that we can bring the talent on to address that threat here.
The issue with the Secret Service and the fact that there
are some lapses that have gone on in service, that we need to
address that also.
But more importantly, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, is we
have to retain good talent and we have to attract good talent,
and in order to do that in this environment you have to pay
staff. And so part of what we are trying to do is to the best
we can stay current with what the marketplace bears. And in
order to do that, we have to have resources to do it.
So the chair and I are in complete agreement with this
budget request. And I look forward to any questions that might
come.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, both of you, sincerely,
for coming here before us today.
[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. I was taking some notes here as you were
talking. It is true in regards to the staff, you had a ceiling
of 75, I think, for the committee. You have had an average of
68 positions filled. So the ability to do oversight, the
ability for authorizing, as was mentioned, whether you are just
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security, which has
never been done, or Customs and Border Protection, or Border
Patrol, or ICE, or any of these kinds of things that the
committee is going to be looking at this year is of such
marquee importance, I think.
Just to let you know, first of all, our Committee during
last week went through about half the committees where the
chairmen and the ranking members were making their pitch. Today
we just have two more after you. So then we are going to be
really looking at how much funds we actually have, the amount
of funding that we have available, and then trying to resource
as we can to the very best of our ability.
I point these numbers out because I think they are very
instructive, because the House really has done everything that
we can to be fiscally conservative, not only within our own
Members and their MRAs, but particularly in the committees. The
House committees since the 110th Congress have had a 15 percent
decrease--15 percent decrease--that everybody has pretty much
absorbed. The Senate committees, God love them, have actually
in the same time period had a 4 percent increase while we have
taken a 15 percent decrease. Yet we have some very similar
responsibilities for oversight, et cetera, et cetera. As I say,
the Executive Branch actually has had a 30 percent increase--30
percent increase--since 2008. I just point that out. It is
really a stark contrast.
So I guess my question, and I think the chairman probably
answered it in his testimony, but if we were able to give you
the amount of increase that you are really looking for,
specifically what might you utilize that for? I think you said
probably principally staff and maybe a bit of field hearings as
well.
Mr. McCaul. Yes, Madam Chair. And I think the ranking
member gave an excellent presentation.
If I could just back up, you and I have been on this
committee, for me 10 years, I have never seen a threat
environment higher than I do today since 9/11. And with that
comes the responsibility of the committee and the oversight
responsibilities the committee has.
Specifically to address your question, we believe the
additional counsel to get a reauthorization bill through the
Congress would be vitally important. As you know, we share
jurisdiction more than any other committee, I think in the case
of this committee, with five other committees of jurisdiction.
It is going to be a parliamentary challenge to get this bill
through. The Speaker has told me this is the highest priority
for the committee to get DHS reauthorized for the first time,
and that will take additional counsel.
In addition, we have launched these investigations that I
believe are very important to the American people to close
security gaps of the threats these foreign fighters pose who
have 50,000 ISIS, 20,000 foreign fighters, 5,000 Western
passports, many of whom can go through Europe without a visa
into the United States. Hundreds of Americans have traveled
into Iraq and Syria. And we have a rough number that was talked
about today at the hearing, but you don't know what you don't
know.
And these investigations, I think, would be very important
to not only fill in these security gaps, but protecting the
American people, along with the homegrown violent extremists
who can radicalize over the Internet. And I don't believe this
administration is paying enough attention to that piece. And
this committee, I believe, is making that front and center as
well. So an additional investigator would help, and I think the
field hearings as well.
But we are seeing really, to sort of echo my colleague's
points, I mean, border security, the threat from foreign
fighters and homegrown radicalization, and the cyber threat I
can't underestimate. This committee is going to be front and
center in the cyber debate. Homeland Security, I believe, is
going to be the lead agency as a civilian portal to the private
sector, and we have to make sure that this committee can
function properly to get this piece done right. It is very,
very important to the Nation.
And I have to be honest, to the ranking member's point, we
just lost our staff director on the cybersecurity committee.
And we have lost staff not to other committees, because I think
it is a very interesting time for the committee, but we have
lost them to the private sector, particularly on cybersecurity,
where somebody that gets good experience in our committee can
double or quadruple their salary.
So I think that is becoming a growing field and threat to
the United States that this committee needs to be fully
equipped to deal with.
The Chairman. Mr. Thompson, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Thompson. Well, the only thing I can add, Madam Chair,
is the chairman is correct, we have to have the complement of
staff necessary to address all the threats that we come in
contact with. Those threats are growing. And in order to be
prepared, we need to have staff and equipment and the ability
to do the necessary work to keep America safe. And we can't do
homeland security on the cheap. The public is clearly
supportive of the mission of this Department, and what we have
to do is further refine the mission, make it cost-effective.
But security is an investment that up to this point the public
is willing to make.
The Chairman. Very good.
My ranking member, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just thank you for the job you do in keeping our homeland
safe. And I would assure you that the chair of this committee
will do everything that she can--and I would like to join her
in doing that--to try to make sure that you have all you need,
the wherewithal to keep keeping us safe. So thank you, and
thank you for the job that you do.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
The gentlelady from Virginia.
Very well.
All right, gentlemen. We sure appreciate your attendance
here today and your attention from your committee staff and
yourselves to the detail of what your requests are. Again, we
are going to take a look at everything, obviously, in an
aggregate and see where we can go here. But I am well aware of
what the committee does and the challenges that we are facing
from a staffing level and oversight, et cetera. So I appreciate
it, and we will get back to you. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The Chairman. I will now recess the hearing. The Committee
will reconvene subject to the call of the chair, which will be
immediately following our votes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee now welcomes Chairman
Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters of the Committee on
Financial Services. I would ask the official reporter to please
enter a page break in the hearing record to begin a new
section.
The Chairman. The House Committee on Financial Services has
jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the economy, the banking
system, housing, insurance, and securities and exchanges.
Additionally, the committee also has jurisdiction over monetary
policy, international finance, international monetary
organizations, and efforts to combat terrorist financing.
The Committee certainly welcomes both the chairman and the
ranking member. Before I recognize you, Mr. Chairman, let me
just say to both of you that your committee staffs, your
respective committee staffs were very, very helpful to our
staffs when we were trying to get all the information gathered
together, so we would be prepared for your presentation today.
So we are appreciative of that.
With that, the chair recognizes Chairman Hensarling.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEB HENSARLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Miller,
Ranking Member Brady, and members of the committee, Ranking
Member Waters and I are pleased to appear before you on behalf
of the Financial Services Committee.
Certainly I believe that the Congress must always lead by
example in matters of budgeting, especially in times of
historically high debt. I know the members of this committee
have to make many important and tough decisions about the
allocation of resources and budgeting limits, just as we do on
our particular committee. To help you in this effort, I am here
to explain the committee's priorities and discuss how we plan
to use the valuable resources, hopefully to better serve
taxpayers, citizens, and the members of our committee.
Chairman Miller, as you just delineated, our Financial
Services Committee does have a broad jurisdiction, including
the entire U.S. financial system. Indeed, this does include our
banking system, our capital markets, our housing finance
system, insurance, monetary policy, and international finance.
From Main Street to Wall Street, there are very few financial
transactions that are not impacted by the jurisdiction of this
committee.
Among the agencies that we have the responsibility to
oversee include the Federal Reserve, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and
many other components of the Department of Treasury. We are one
of the largest standing committees of the House, with 34
Republicans, 26 Democrats. We have a few dozen committed
staffers whose salaries comprise the vast majority of our
committee's budget, as I think you have already observed.
We work to make sure that the agencies under our
jurisdiction treat the taxpayers' dollars with respect, because
after all, it is not their money and it is not our money, it is
the taxpayers' money. As I testified before you in the last
Congress, just like every American family, we have to
prioritize our spending, just like they do. So in the last
Congress we readjusted our spending to accommodate the
sequestration cuts by combining two longstanding subcommittees,
into one to streamline the workload. We did, however, delay a
number of equipment purchases and IT investments. We have put
off a number of important long-term staff hires.
In addition to those actions, you are well acquainted,
Chairman Miller, because you and this whole committee were
helpful, but we had to reprioritize our spending in mid-
Congress to accommodate essential hearing room renovations
after numerous and embarrassing audiovisual failures of
equipment that had grown antiquated.
While we are very pleased to have the necessary renovation,
mainly an AV system that actually works--I thank, again, the
chair and all committee members for the assistance and
excellent service that you and your staff have provided--you
need to know, though, that the uncertainty surrounding the
expenditures associated with those renovations did factor into
our budgeting and spending decisions. So it made it very
difficult for us to budget for staff hires, which is obviously
a top priority for us in this Congress.
I need not tell you the 2008 financial crisis was the worst
since the Great Depression. It has exponentially increased the
workload of this committee. Most believe that the underlying
cause of the crisis falls within our committee's jurisdiction,
as does the ultimate solution or prevention. And whether it is
examining the role of Washington's housing policies, the
government-sponsored enterprises, the Federal Reserve's
monetary policies, we continue on our committee to be committed
to addressing the root causes of this crisis and do everything
we can to avoid yet another one.
We believe that this Congress, Madam Chair and members,
could be the busiest since the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010.
Whether you like it, whether you dislike it, it is clearly the
most dramatic change to our Nation's financial regulatory
system since the New Deal. And the fact that nearly 5 years
after its passage regulators are still writing many of the
mandated rules and regulations is at least testimony to its
complexity. Dodd-Frank's 2,300 pages include more than 400
separate rulemakings. Again, every sector of our economy, every
town, every pocketbook and wallet are going to be impacted by
this historic legislation. So from manufacturers of the latest
smart phones, to families trying to buy or sell a home, to
single moms purchasing groceries with their credit cards,
virtually no one in America is left untouched by this act.
So while the other major law that has been passed in recent
years, the Affordable Care Act, spans three committees of
jurisdiction, our committee has sole responsibility for
overseeing almost the entirety of Dodd-Frank's implementation.
Therefore, to make sure that the law is properly implemented,
we will and must continue to focus much of our energy and
resources monitoring the implementation, making legislative
changes where necessary, and exercising very robust and
effective oversight under this dramatic piece of legislation.
In addition, I need not tell you that although there have
been improvements in our economy, millions continue to suffer.
Middle-income paychecks are smaller. Their bank accounts are
smaller than they were 6 years ago. So our committee will
continue to work on putting forward legislation to get America
back to work, and we will continue to work to send dozens of
bipartisan job-creation bills to the floor. This also will take
a lot of our particular focus. Regulatory relief helps small
businesses and entrepreneurs, since we know that
entrepreneurial activity, regrettably, is at a generational
low.
Additionally, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the
founding of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and we will take a thorough review of all of their programs.
Just earlier today we had Secretary Castro appear before our
committee. We will examine what the Department has done. That
will also take a lot of time and attention.
In closing, our committee is hard at work on the priorities
of the American people. With further resources, we think we
would be able to provide the manpower to propose even more
policies that will help secure upward mobility and economic
opportunity and financial independence to our constituents and
hard-working taxpayers. Thus, we have submitted the request
before you, and we thank you for the opportunity to testify.
And at the appropriate moment, I would be happy to answer
questions.
The Chairman. I thank the chairman very much.
[The statement of Mr. Hensarling follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. At this time the chair recognizes the ranking
member, Ms. Waters.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member Brady. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify before you today, along with Chairman
Hensarling, to discuss the budgetary needs of the Financial
Services Committee.
As ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, I am
very concerned about any proposed reduction in the committee's
2015 budget. The minority receives one-third of the staff slots
and total budget, with total control over both categories. At
the beginning of the 113th Congress, the committee sustained a
12 percent cut to its budget. We were able to weather the
impact of that cut by limiting new hires and allowing for the
natural attrition of staff. Unlike other committees, we avoided
furloughing any staff. The lack of furloughs was positive for
morale and helped to foster a collaborative working environment
for staff.
Today, I am pleased to say that despite the budget cut the
committee has one of the finest, sharpest staffs on the Hill.
They are experts in financial regulation, housing and community
development programs, monetary policy, and a host of other
issues. Despite our very responsible management of the
committee budget, I am very concerned that any reduction in
funding will lead to the very kinds of furloughs and pay cuts
that I have striven to avoid, thereby putting at risk the top
notch team of expert staff who implement the committee's
legislative, policy, and oversight agenda. Full funding is also
required to support that staff. Last Congress we were able to
replace our outdated committee servers. We also purchased new
laptops and other equipment and authorized cell phone use for
staff. These purchases were made as a result of the relocation
of the committee staff to the O'Neill Building. While the move
is now complete, we do anticipate making additional purchases,
as the majority has promised to provide office space in the
basement of the Rayburn Building for Democratic committee
staff, and that space would need to be outfitted with the
appropriate technology so that staff can work effectively
there.
Moreover, we anticipate that the House will soon make a
decision regarding support for the BlackBerry. As BlackBerrys
are used by our staff, any change in House support of
BlackBerrys would require the purchase and maintenance of new
smart phones. We would require funding to cover these costs in
that eventuality.
In lieu of a budget cut, I strongly recommend that the
committee consider a budget increase for the Financial Services
Committee. The chairman has requested a very modest 2 percent
increase in the committee's budget for this year, and I support
this request. My chairman has indicated that he will conduct
aggressive oversight on many laws and agencies under the
committee's jurisdiction, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Jumpstart Our Business
Startups, that is the JOBS Act, and the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act.
Dodd-Frank implementation will be of particular interest to
the committee, as it involves many critical rulemaking
initiatives across nearly a dozen agencies. While Dodd-Frank
implementation will take up most of the committee's time, there
are non-Dodd-Frank issues that demand the committee's time as
well, such as the housing programs of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the monetary policy of the Federal
Reserve.
In addition, at the beginning of this Congress our
committee rules were revised in order to grant our chairman
unilateral subpoena authority. As the majority began several
investigations last year, I anticipate the continuation of
these investigations and the initiation of new investigations
by the majority. Moreover, the House also voted at the
beginning of the year to give our committee the authority to
conduct depositions. Given that it was the will of the House to
give the committee this new authority, it should be the will of
the House to provide additional funding to help the committee
properly use this authority.
Again, the amount the chairman has requested is a very
modest increase, but would result in a very significant
positive impact on our committee's operations, especially given
the new powers that the committee has been given.
The issues faced by the Financial Services Committee are
highly complicated, technical, and can be at times
controversial. The requested increase in funding for the
committee will improve our ability to conduct the appropriate
oversight of these issues and to protect the American taxpayer.
I thank you very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
We appreciate both of your testimony and all of the written
materials that you have submitted to the Committee as well.
Actually our Committee, last week got through about half the
committees. After you two, we only have one more committee to
go through, and we will be through everyone. It is interesting
how some of the committees have asked for level funding, some
have asked for a small increase, and some have asked for a bit
more. We are taking every one of these requests into, I say it
in all sincerity, very serious consideration.
As you have mentioned, I was mentioning this to one of the
other committee chairs, because I think it is just an
interesting number, the House has tried to be so fiscally
conservative in what we are doing not only in our own personal
MRAs, but within the committee structures as well. Since the
110th Congress, the House committees have had a 15 percent
reduction in their budgets.
Now, the Senate, God love them, has actually had a 4
percent increase since the 110th Congress and we have taken a
15 percent decrease. The Executive Branch has actually
increased 30 percent since 2008. Yet a big part of all of our
responsibilities with all of our respective committees is
oversight of the various agencies, all these different things.
So I do think in many ways we have really hobbled ourselves in
our ability to conduct the oversight that is required of us.
So I would say this, I guess I would ask you, and I think
both of you really have articulated what you would use the
increase for, but specifically, if we were able to grant you
your request for what you are asking here, the various nominal
increase, actually a little less than 2 percent, what might you
use that for?
I am not saying that we are going to be able to do that.
When we complete our matters today, we will then go into our
own discussions about the amount of money that we have
available and what we may be able to do to resource the various
committees optimally. We would want to do that, obviously, with
Financial Services as well, with all the unique challenges that
you face.
Would it be principally staff? I noticed here that you have
got a staff ceiling of 86 and your average positions filled 63.
So you really are, I am sure, struggling with that.
Mr. Hensarling. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. If for
nothing else, I had to come here to learn that God does love
the Senate. I was curious at times. If you posit it, Madam
Chair, I will take your word for it.
To be serious, it would almost be exclusively in staff.
When I became chairman, we have substantially less staff with
the sequestration. Again, it is not just impacting our
committee. I understand that. But the workload on our committee
has increased precipitously due to the dramatic and historic
nature of the Dodd-Frank Act. And, again, most of the
jurisdiction having to do with assuring that the next financial
crisis does not occur, that is part of our committee's
jurisdiction.
So at a bare minimum this would allow the majority side
roughly a half a dozen new staffers. And when I say new, net.
We have actually had a couple lured over to the other side of
the Capitol, I do not understand why, but they were lured to
the other side of the Capitol. But particularly in the area of
financial institutions, we have a need for a chief counsel in
that area. Again, I am not here to debate the relative merits
or demerits of the law, but there is a significant compliance
challenge, particularly for community financial institutions.
So we have staffing needs there.
The housing finance system, we may not quite agree on the
solution, but I think there is fairly bipartisan agreement that
this system is broken, it must be repaired. And so we hope that
we will have a major initiative in this Congress. So we also
have needs in the areas of government-sponsored enterprises.
Relatively speaking, we have beefed up our oversight staff,
but we need to have better coordination between our policy
leads and our oversight staff.
So the short answer, Madam Chair, to your question is, it
is almost exclusively in staff, because we have far fewer staff
and we have a far greater workload than what we had just a few
years ago.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Waters, do you have any----
Ms. Waters. Well, I mentioned in my testimony that we are
anticipating some new office space that has to be outfitted
with the appropriate technology. A lot of renovation. It is
going on, I guess, in the Rayburn Building, I guess in other
places also.
And moving our staff around, we have to make sure that,
first of all, we get some space. And then we have got to make
sure it is equipped properly in order to do the job that they
need to do. So the technology is extremely important for us.
The other thing, in addition to some additional perhaps
staff support, because of the complexity of the oversight of
Dodd-Frank and all that it touches on, I am very interested in
some limited travel to financial centers. Working on the
Financial Services Committee, it is absolutely important that
our staffers are able to witness firsthand the operations of
some of these financial centers. And so I would like very much
to have included in our budget some limited travel so that we
would be able to do that.
So between technology, some increased staff and travel,
that is basically what we would use the money for.
The Chairman. Okay. I appreciate that.
The ranking member, Mr. Brady? Nothing?
We will start with Mr. Nugent from Florida.
Mr. Nugent. No.
The Chairman. Nothing?
Mr. Davis.
Mrs. Comstock.
No? Okay. Very good.
Well, again, we are appreciative of your time and your
assistance on this, and we will give it every consideration,
and we will get back to you. Thank you.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
The Chairman. The Committee now welcomes Chairman Dent and
Ranking Member Saanchez of the Committee on Ethics. I would ask
the official reporter to enter a page break into the hearing
record to begin a new section.
The Chairman. The House Committee on Ethics is the only
standing committee of the House whose membership is evenly
divided between each political party. Under House rules, the
committee has the jurisdiction to administer travel, gift,
financial disclosure, outside income, and other regulations,
advise Members and staff, issue advisory opinions, and
investigate potential ethics violations.
This committee is also authorized to enforce standards of
conduct for Members, officers, and employees, to investigate
alleged violations of any law, rule, or regulation, and to make
recommendations to the House for further action. The Ethics
Committee, as well, has sole jurisdiction over the
interpretation of the Code of Official Conduct.
So we certainly welcome you both to our committee.
Before I recognize Chairman Dent, I would just tell you
both that your entire committee staff, I should say, equally
divided really, were very responsive to our staff here when we
were trying to get all of our information together for your
request. So we were really prepared for your presentation
today, and are appreciative of all your committee staff.
With that, the chair would recognize Chairman Dent.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES W. DENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the kind
words about the staff. They do a great job for us, and we are
really lucky to have them. They are nonpartisan too.
Again, thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brady,
and other members of the committee who are here today. And I
also want to thank you for inviting Ranking Member Saanchez and
me to discuss the committee's efforts during the past Congress
and what we foresee as the challenges of the committee and the
challenges that we are going to face in the 114th Congress.
While we cannot provide details for the committee's work,
most of which is confidential by House rule, we will be as
frank as we possibly can. And while I am a new chairman, this
is my seventh year serving on the Ethics Committee. During my
tenure on this committee I have come to deeply appreciate the
seriousness that my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat,
bring to our responsibilities.
The work of the committee is important and vital to the
House and each of its Members and employees and to the American
public. The committee's work and financial needs are divided
into three main functions. These are advice and education,
financial disclosure review, and investigation and
adjudication.
Advice and education and financial disclosure review are
primarily customer service efforts, and are necessary and
important to ensure that Members and staff do not run afoul of
the ethics rules, laws, and regulations that guide our conduct.
Our staff works hard every day to answer questions and provide
guidance on a wide range of issues that could land a Member or
staffer in trouble if not for the guidance they request and
receive.
In addition to the guidance and advice provided on a daily
basis, our advice and education staff provide training to staff
and Members either through regularly scheduled training
sessions or upon request. Our financial disclosure staff review
all the annual disclosure statements, as well as the more
recently required periodic transaction reports, the PTRs, that
Members and certain staff are required to file monthly. Our
investigation and adjudication work is qualitatively different.
In addition to accuracy and promptness, we strive for
integrity, discretion, fairness in process, and a complete
understanding of the facts. I worked with the current staff for
several years, and am very proud of the work they performed for
the House. They understand the seriousness of the jobs that
they are asked to do and do so in a strictly nonpartisan way.
Each Member or employee who contacts the committee for guidance
or advice can feel secure knowing they are getting unbiased and
professional advice. Our investigative staff provides the same
professional and nonpartisan efforts to ensure each allegation
is thoroughly and fairly investigated and a just conclusion and
recommendation is reached.
I began my tenure as chairman following the same
requirements of my predecessor, that timeliness continues to be
a top priority in all of our committee's work. When a Member or
an employee comes to the committee for advice or approval, or
when a Member or employee's conduct has come under review,
those Members or staff deserve the committee's impartial
consideration and deserve it as expeditiously and
confidentially as possible.
It is clear that our workload has been increasing in all
three areas of the committee's work, as the ranking member will
describe in a few moments in her comments. In investigative
matters, the committee has continued to be very active. In the
113th Congress the committee began or continued 89
investigative matters.
While the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics
several years ago has added to the committee's workload, it is
important to note that the committee is very active in
undertaking investigations on its own initiative. In the last
Congress, OCE, the Office of Congressional Ethics, referred 22
matters to the committee, 16 with a recommendation that the
committee review the matter further and six with a
recommendation that the committee dismiss the matter. So only
about a quarter of the committee's investigative matters were
related to an OCE referral. That is consistent with the 112th
Congress, when the committee considered 96 investigative
matters and received a total of 23 referrals from the OCE, of
which 13 recommended further review and 10 recommended
dismissal.
Some investigations can take years to be completed. This is
in part because of their complexity, but also the number of
documents the committee must review and analyze. In the last
Congress, the committee's investigative staff reviewed more
than 430,000 pages of documents. One matter alone required the
review of more than 220,000 pages of documents.
With the proper number of attorneys and the right training
and experience, we hope to continue to improve the
investigative process and decrease the amount of time it takes
to complete each investigation. With your committee's help our
committee has begun a project to greatly improve its
correspondence management system, which is the backbone of the
advice and guidance we provide to Members and staff. The new
system will replace a system that is over 20 years old.
Our budget for the 114th Congress will provide the
resources necessary to continue the progress we have made over
the last several years in providing timely advice and
completing investigations in a much shorter timeframe.
Thank you for your time. And I look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman very much.
[The statement of Mr. Dent follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes Ms. Saanchez.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA T. SAANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Saanchez. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member Brady, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity for us to talk about the work that the Ethics
Committee does and our budget needs.
At the outset, I just want to begin by saying how much I am
looking forward to working with Chairman Dent. This is going to
be our third Congress serving on the Ethics Committee together.
Also, most of our colleagues on the Ethics Committee are
returning members this year. And in the past I think all of us
have worked together well. And it is worth noting that in the
last Congress all of our votes were unanimous on the matters
that we had to vote on before us.
Our committee also enjoys a good relationship with your
committee. We work with House Administration probably more
closely than any other committee. And we appreciate the
opportunity to work with you all on things like new Member
orientation and other issues of concern that affect the House.
We understand that you have an unenviable task. Dividing up
a pool of limited resources among all of the committees, each
of which has important work to do, I am sure cannot be easy.
Others have compared it to trying to fairly divide up the
pieces of a pie.
In our case, I think there is a slightly better metaphor,
and if you will indulge me, the resources that are allocated to
the committee are less like dessert and more like vitamins.
They are necessary supplements to make not only our committee,
but the whole House stronger. And this is true because of the
unique role that the committee plays in interpreting and
enforcing the House's ethics rules, as the chairman discussed.
We recognize that in recent years all committees have had
to make do with fewer resources than they might like. But in
the case of the Ethics Committee, its responsibilities have
actually increased quite a bit. The House has repeatedly chosen
to give the Ethics Committee additional responsibilities.
For example, in the 110th Congress the committee was
charged with reviewing and approving all requests to accept
privately sponsored travel, providing ethics training to
Members, and enforcing a mandatory requirement for the roughly
10,000 employees of the House, and reviewing recommendations of
a newly created entity, the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Similarly, in the 112th Congress, the committee was charged
with administering the new financial disclosure requirements of
the STOCK Act. In this Congress, the House made it mandatory
for new Members of the House to complete ethics training soon
after they enter the House and begin their term.
In recognition of those growing responsibilities, several
years ago the Ethics Committee received an increase of its
staff cap to 29 slots. However, because of the budget climate
since that time, the committee has never been fully staffed at
its current cap.
Despite the fact that we have not been able to reach our
full staff cap, the committee staff has done an extraordinary
amount of work to serve the House. In December, the committee
issued a 250-page summary of its activities in the 113th
Congress. That report is available to the House and to the
public on our Web site, ethics.house.gov. A few figures from
that report illustrate the scope of the committee's work for
the House.
So in the last Congress the committee issued more than 320
formal advisory opinions regarding ethics rules; fielded nearly
40,000 informal telephone calls, emails, and in-person requests
for guidance on ethics issues; released 18 advisory memorandum,
which are officially known as pink sheets, on various ethics
topics relevant to the House; provided training to
approximately 10,000 House Members, officers, and employees
each year; received more than 5,000 financial disclosure
statements and amendments filed by House Members, officers,
senior staff, and House candidates; and received nearly 3,000
periodic transaction reports filed by House Members, officers,
and senior staff. And those periodic transaction reports
detailed thousands of financial transactions.
The committee thus far has been able to meet its
responsibilities to the House and produce this extraordinary
amount of work because of our greatest resource at the
committee, our very talented, nonpartisan staff. Again, in the
last Congress the committee staff handled our increased
workload with excellence and with professionalism, even though
we were short of the maximum staff slot allowance. And that is
possible because we have a very good, very experienced team on
the Ethics Committee.
The Ethics Committee enjoys one of the smallest budgets of
any House committee, and about 95 percent of our budget is
spent on staff salaries. And staff recruitment and retention in
particular remains a challenge in the current budget climate,
particularly for a committee like Ethics, which needs attorneys
with very specialized knowledge and experience.
And I am closing now, so with your permission if I could
just finish. All of the staff on the Ethics Committee are
important, and they are all necessary members of our team.
However, the chairman and I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge the contributions of one staff member in
particular.
As has been the case in many previous years, the budget
submission and supporting materials we have provided for you
today at this hearing relied heavily on the contributions of
our administrative staff director, Joanne White. In a few weeks
Joanne is going to mark her 24th year with the Ethics
Committee, and this summer will be her 37th anniversary with
the House of Representatives. She is the epitome of a
commitment to public service, and she sets the standard for the
rest of the staff. We are grateful to all of their service to
the committee and to the House.
And, again, thank you for our opportunity to be heard
today, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you. We certainly appreciate your
testimony.
[The statement of Ms. Saanchez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Chairman. Ms. White, thank you very much for your
service to the Ethics Committee and to the entire House of
Representatives. You have your boss's back there, right?
Always. I will tell you this, whatever business you are
involved in, at the end of the day it is always about the
people. Always about the people. So it is great to have your
bosses recognize you in that way.
Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member as well, both of you
were commenting about your staff ceiling, 29, and you have
averaged about 25 positions. So you have never been there. I
just point this out, I was pointing it out to some of the other
chairmen as well, because I think it is an interesting
statistic really. In your case of course you are essentially
looking for level funding here, and we are very appreciative of
that.
On the other hand, since the 110th Congress the House
committees have actually taken a 15 percent, generally, 15
percent reduction in our committee funding. Of course we have
taken similar amounts in our own MRAs, but in regards to the
committee funding, the Senate, God love them, has actually had
a 4 percent increase during that same time. We have taken a 15
percent decrease.
So we really, I think, hobbled ourselves and our ability
with a lot of the committees that have oversight
responsibilities, or various kinds of challenges. Your mission
that you do for the House is so important. Actually, I was also
going to mention the Executive Branch has had a 30 percent
increase since 2008.
So we really have, I think, in the House tried to be as
fiscally conservative as we can. So our committee has had, last
week and now this week, the Ethics Committee actually is our
last committee to take testimony from, we have heard now from
every committee in the House, and both the chair and the
ranking member. Full transparency, about half the committees
are asking for level funding and some are asking for a slight
increase. Some are asking for a little bit more, depending on
what they think their needs are.
If we were able to not only maintain level funding for the
Committee on Ethics, but if we were able to give you a slight
increase--and I am not saying that we could do that, but when
we are done here we are going to start really going through all
these numbers and seeing what we can do here to resource
optimally for each committee--but if we were able to get you a
slight increase, would it just be for staff principally or do
you have some technology needs? Maybe you sort of went through
that in your opening statement. But really if you had a slight
increase, what would it be?
Mr. Dent. Financial analysts to help us with these PTRs,
these periodic transaction reports, these monthly reports. Our
volume has increased dramatically for financial disclosure
because of the STOCK Act. That probably more than anything
would be our greatest need. Technology, I think we are doing a
little bit better. We are a little bit better there. But it is
all about staff right now.
The volume, it is not just on financial disclosure. Also on
the trips, the number of privately funded trips, that volume
has also increased. So that is where our time and effort would
be needed. And for $150,000 I think we could do a lot to help
improve the speed with which we deal with those issues.
The Chairman. Ms. Saanchez, do you have anything to offer
on that?
Ms. Saanchez. I would agree. I think the explosion in the
number of transactions that need to be reviewed by the
financial disclosure staff has created a real crunch on our
staff. And if we were able to add an additional position to
help with that volume, I think that that would also lessen the
burden on other folks that get pulled off of projects to come
pitch in and help with that.
It is very staff-intensive, the work that the Ethics
Committee does. And if we were able to, again, have additional
staff to help with that volume, it would mean quicker response
times for Members and their staffs when they have inquiries or
questions of the Ethics Committee.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
My ranking member, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to also congratulate Ms. White on all her
years of service. God bless you. How you put up with us for 37
years is amazing. One thing I know, you are going to heaven.
You are skipping purgatory, going right to heaven.
But, no, Madam Chair, I would not dare have any questions
to the esteemed chairman and ranking member of our esteemed
Ethics Committee.
The Chairman. Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. No.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. I am going to follow my colleague from
Pennsylvania with absolutely no questions.
The Chairman. Okay.
Well, again, we appreciate it very much. We are going to
really start putting a fine-tuned pencil here and seeing what
we can do. I appreciate your response in regard to if we were
able to plus you up here a little bit of what you actually
would be looking for. That is true with the STOCK Act. I mean,
I am sure that was not something you were doing until the last
couple of years here. All of a sudden, boom. So they give you
more and not any more resources to deal with it.
Are there any other questions that we didn't ask you that
you want to bring anything else out?
Mr. Dent. We thank you.
The Chairman. Okay. Very good.
Ms. Saanchez. We just want to note for the record they
asked me, if they ask you what you would do with the additional
funding, don't say a batting cage in the Members' gym.
The Chairman. Okay. We may put that in the record, we may
not, right?
Thank you very much. We sure appreciate both of you, your
attendance here today, and we will get back to you.
That concludes all of the testimony from all of the
committees for the Committee on House Administration. As I have
told every one of the committee chairs and ranking members, we
will be looking at the resources we have available and we will
be coming forward with an authorizing resolution.
Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]