HRES-86-119
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Sponsored by Jim Jordan (R-OH)
What it does
This resolution would authorize up to $31,714,000 for the House Judiciary Committee's operating expenses, including staff salaries, for the 119th Congress. The funds are split into two equal annual allotments of $15,857,000 each, and payments would require vouchers signed by the Committee Chairman and approved under House Administration Committee rules.
Who benefits
Members and staff of the House Judiciary Committee, whose salaries and operating costs are funded by this resolution. Vendors, contractors, and outside experts the Committee hires for hearings and investigations would also receive payment from these funds.
Who is hurt
No group is meaningfully harmed. This is a routine internal appropriation covering committee operations already conducted as part of Congress's regular business, drawn from existing House accounts rather than creating new spending obligations outside normal budgeting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this resolution is a routine, necessary step to fund the Judiciary Committee's core functions, including staff salaries, hearings, and investigations, for the two-year congressional term. They contend that without this authorization the committee could not pay staff or conduct oversight, legislative, and confirmation work that falls within its jurisdiction over courts, civil liberties, and law enforcement.
Opponents argue
Opponents, to the extent any object, might argue that specific committee funding levels deserve scrutiny for whether they are proportionate to workload compared to other committees, or that voucher-based spending overseen internally by the Committee on House Administration lacks the transparency of public appropriations review. They contend internal committee budgeting processes generally receive less public attention than they should given the sums involved.
Constitutional context
This resolution falls under Congress's authority to govern its own internal proceedings and organization under Article I, Section 5's Rules of Proceedings Clause, which the Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin (1892) held is largely left to each chamber's own judgment and not subject to judicial second-guessing.
Checks and balances
The House retains full authority over its own committee funding through this internal resolution, with oversight of spending vested in the Committee on House Administration; no other branch is involved.
Historical precedent
Each new Congress routinely passes similar committee funding resolutions for all standing committees, including the Judiciary Committee, as a standard part of organizing House operations.