Mr. Ralph Nader October 16, 1991 Page Six Lead abatement and disposal is also a concern in the Capitol complex. Several initiatives have been undertaken including designing lead-free plumbing systems in the Capitol, Russell and Cannon House office buildings. Further, all the vehicles operated by the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol police, and the Congressional leadership use unleaded gasoline. Lead-based paint, which hasn't been used in the Capitol complex for many years, is disposed of in a controlled manner as part of the hazardous materials disposal program if it is disturbed during work in such areas. Domestic drinking water is also being tested on a regular basis, and substandard sources are being corrected. This is not an exhaustive report on these activities. There are other examples of programs that the Congress has initiated to improve its local environment and to set examples for new and environmentally progressive technologies. Since these programs are not without cost, we are constrained in our ability to fund every promising project, but we feel that we are doing our share to protect the environment and to conserve our resources. In addition to all of the above, as Vice Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I have been a staunch advocate of a strong renewable energy research and development program. I am pleased that Federal support for these vital technologies is again on the increase. You may be interested to know that the solar energy account represents the only major segment of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 1992 budget that was increased above the President's request. Specifically, the energy and water development appropriations bill, signed into law on August 17, 1991, included an additional $39.6 million above the President's request for research and development of renewable energy technologies. This represents a substantial 24 percent increase over the President's budget recommendation, and I think it moves the solar R&D program solidly in the right direction. I would like to believe that even our most caustic and cynical critics, a group of which you are uncontestably an ardent member, would acknowledge that the Congress has done a great deal within its own precinct. We clearly do not deserve the unfounded innuendo contained in your letter, your press release, and in the incomplete research conducted by your tax deduction-supported government research project. The irony is that I believe you and I are in close agreement in recognizing the need to be environmentally conscious and Mr. Ralph Nader environment. Can it be that your partisan acerbity on the Federal senior level partial salary catch-up adjustment has affected your willingness to work cooperatively with those in Congress who share with you these common goals? Sincerely Vic Fazio, Chairman P.S. Could it be that your letter to me was typed on non-recycled paper!? You can be certain that this one in response is not. At this time, if Mr. Lewis, my good friend and ranking member, would like to make a comment, we would ask him to do so. COMMENTS FROM MR. LEWIS Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I don't normally make a formal presentation at this time in our hearings, but we find ourselves at a very interesting moment. As your opening statement suggests, the Legislative Branch has a serious responsibility of not just defending the work of the Legislative Branch but arguing through the pros and cons of various funding requests that may come to us. The fact is, however, that over the years, as we have operated in this Subcommittee, a significant piece of our work has essentially been a rubber stamp by way of appropriations, a decision is made in the House Administration Committee, and that has led to a side controversy on the Floor that seems to be developing a growing voice that I personally think we ought to address. It seems to me that perhaps the time is past when we can afford to be just a rubber stamp regarding some of these questions, questions like this raised on the Floor by my colleagues and some of yours, I am sure, as well. It is presumed by many that there is a thing called the contingency fund in this bill, and that is presumed to be a free-flowing slush fund for the Speaker to be used at will. That is not an accurate nor a fair description of the definition of our contingency fund, but having said that, when the Speaker can at will sign a note that puts very costly marble floors in elevators with no discussion of the members of the Appropriations Committee who have to spend the money finally, questions that are serious questions not only will be raised on the Floor, they probably ought to be raised here as well. It seems to me further that, as in the past, we have just automatically passed on staff requests for various committee staff needs, and that has been appropriate over the years from my reflection, but largely because there was broad-based bipartisan support for those committee expansions within the House Administration Committee. I think it is appropriate that we have information regarding what kinds of questions were raised, where there were circumstances that were less than a significant majority in the House Administration Committee. Our Committees, since you and I have served on this Subcommittee, have expanded very significantly beyond the investigative staff base. I doubt that our workload has increased proportionately. The why of that ought to be a question of this Committee, for, if not, the questions are raised by amendment and other kinds of discussions on the floor. It seems to me further that a very serious question is in my mind at this moment. When I came to this Committee meeting today and read in the newspaper very serious allegations about the operations of one branch of our Subcommittee, questions that have been being discussed apparently within House circles for at least half-a-year, maybe more than a year, without this Member ever knowing that the problem existed, puts this Member in a most dif bers of the leadership but with Members who want to raise questions of this kind. I would suggest further that perhaps we protest this too much, about the focus that comes in the media regarding this Subcommittee's work. After all, we are the seat of government, we claim to be every bit as important as the Administration, and indeed very important public decisions are made here, and to have the media and others want to focus upon the way we pay for, the way we operate that process logically, would draw high focus and, frankly, I would prefer in the future that we have more of that intense focus here in this committee room rather than by way of amendment on the Floor. Mr. FAZIO. I appreciate those comments. Mr. Obey, do you want to comment at this point as a long-time member of the Committee? COMMENTS FROM MR. OBEY Mr. OBEY. Well, I had not planned to, but I guess all I would say—I was not aware of one of the points that you raised in your opening comments. I would simply say that I have been involved in virtually every reform effort that has occurred in this House since the day I got here. Jamie Whitten was teasing me at his portrait ceremony, indicating that when Bill Natcher and I died and went to heaven, Natcher wouldn't go in until he was given a copy of the rules; and I wouldn't go in until I had a chance to change the rules. Probably right on both counts. But I simply want to say that I have worked with both of you gentlemen from California on a lot of things through the years. I cannot think of any other Members who have been more important to crucial reform efforts around this place than both of you, and I think that needs to be understood by everybody. Most of the reforms we have had through the years, whether they be reforms relating to disclosure, reforms relating to ethics, or reforms relating to management, would not have been possible and would not have taken place without the two of you. I think that that is the context in which this discussion ought to occur. Mr. FAZIO. Well, I appreciate those comments, and I am sure Mr. Lewis joins me in expressing that appreciation. I think all of us who are charged with responsibilities here also realize our responsibility to the public is to make whatever improvements we can in the way this place functions, and those of us in this room, including Chairman Rose and certainly yourself, given your long history back into the early 1970s of reform activity, can be comfortable that we have fulfilled our responsibilities to our constituents, at least as much or more than to our colleagues, and some of them actually will remind us of that on occasion, but that |