Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi, Chairman WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky,

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana NEAL SMITH, Iowa

CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida EDWARD R. ROYBAL, California

RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio

CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan TOM BEVILL, Alabama

MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania

BILL GREEN, New York BOB TRAXLER, Michigan

JERRY LEWIS, California JOSEPH D. EARLY, Massachusetts

JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois CHARLES WILSON, Texas

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington

JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MATTHEW F. McHUGH, New York

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida

BILL LOWERY, California MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota

VIN WEBER, Minnesota JULIAN C. DIXON, California

TOM DELAY, Texas
VIC FAZIO, California

JIM KOLBE, Arizona
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey
LES AUCOIN, Oregon

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
BERNARD J. DWYER, New Jersey

JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
BOB CARR, Michigan
ROBERT J. MRAZEK, New York
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
LINDSAY THOMAS, Georgia
CHESTER G. ATKINS, Massachusetts
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana

FREDERICK G. MOHRMAN, Clerk and Staff Director
NOTES:

The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte was Ranking Minority Member of the Committee until his death on February 8, 1991.

The Honorable William H. Gray III resigned from the Committee on September 11, 1991.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS

FOR 1993

THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1992. Mr. Fazio. We will now commence hearings on the Fiscal Year 1993 budget for the various Legislative Branch Agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations.

I normally introduce the Members of the Subcommittee at this time. We have a number of Members of the Subcommittee who will be available sometime over the next couple of days and weeks as we complete this Legislative Branch hearing schedule. Obviously, Larry Smith of Florida, the Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee, will be a key member; Dave Obey, who has been a member for many, many years, and is probably as informed as any member of this Committee about the issues we deal with; John Murtha and Bob Traxler, who are both long-time members of the Subcommittee and stalwart supporters whenever needed, and Bill Lehman, who is a new Member of this Subcommittee.

That means that, with the exception of Mr. Smith, all the other Subcommittee members are Subcommittee Chairmen and will, therefore, have occasionally a difficult time in attending, but I am sure that they will be, with staff present, fully informed about the issues that come before us.

I would like to pay tribute to my friend and Ranking Member, Jerry Lewis of California, who has been serving on this Subcommittee as long as I have. Through the years, despite professional differences that we occasionally have, we have worked very closely for the benefit of the institution. I am very pleased that he is continuing in the role that he has. It is of benefit not only to members of the institution, but the American people, that we have people willing, as he has been, to take a tough assignment and spend a good deal of his time on it in a way that doesn't always, of course, pay dividends in the Member's individual district. John Porter, of Illinois, and Barbara Vucanovich of Nevada are also valued members of this Subcommittee, serving, in John's case, three or four terms and, of course, Barbara having been a very, very good member in her second year on the Subcommittee. Obviously full Committee Chairman Jamie Whitten and the ranking minority member of the full Committee, Joe McDade, are also members of the Subcommittee.

OVERALL APPROPRIATION REQUEST The budget we are going to consider totals $2.1 billion. The total does not include Senate items, which will be considered in the other body.

Of the portion of this budget which will be considered by the Subcommittee, $1.28 billion is for Congressional Operations alone. The balance of the funds requested, which totals $808 million, support statutory, administrative, and other kinds of activities of the Legislative Branch which are performed for the Executive Branch and for the public-at-large. These activities include such agencies as the Library of Congress, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. We should point out that there is far more than $2.1 billion in appropriations included. There are a number of other activities managed by the agencies covered by our bill—a number of trust and gift funds, the copyright royalty fund, which is about $600 million itself, service fees and other reimbursements.

There is also the Government Printing Office revolving fund which is the method GPO uses to provide printing services for the entire Federal government. Under Title XLIV and the Government Corporations Act, we annually authorize the operation of this fund. That is almost $1 billion, which is not scored against the bill because it is derived from charges to other agency appropriations. The actual funding covered by the agencies in the Legislative Branch, therefore, is not $2.1 billion (plus the Senate), but over $4.7 billion estimated for fiscal year 1993. So the sum and the scope of these activities are much larger than most realize.

FY 93 COMPARED WITH FY 92

I would like to make some comparisons from last year's bill. Last year the fiscal year 1992 bill was an increase of about 4.1 percent over the fiscal year 1991 appropriations for Legislative Branch activities. These funds are primarily for staff and computers. We do not have a large hardware or grant program in this particular bill. This is primarily an administrative operation. We occasionally have some capital outlay related to the Architect's budget, however, in most cases we are talking about people and the supplies, equipment, and other things that 'make the Members and Staff more productive and efficient.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMPARED WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH I would like to compare our budget with several comparable Executive Branch personnel intensive programs and indicate what their increases were last year to put in perspective the increase in the Legislative budget. In the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Policy Development had a 9 percent increase last year, the Office of Management and Budget had a 7.4 percent increase, the departmental management at the Department of Education had a 6.5 percent increase, the departmental offices at the Department of Treasury had a 10 percent increase last year, the Administration of Foreign Affairs at the Department of State went up 18.9 percent, and the departmental offices at the Department of InteriThere are many other Executive Branch increases of similar magnitude. We in the Legislative Branch take a lot of criticism for what we spend on ourselves. I know how hard we try to restrain those expenditures. Most of you who watch this Subcommittee realize how tough it is, whatever number we take to the Floor. The comparisons I have just given are an attempt on my part to indicate that we are doing an effective job when you compare us to comparable activities in the Executive Branch.

REBUTTAL ON CRITICISM OF LEGISLATIVE BILL

I would also like to rebut some apparent criticism we have had from a recent article that appeared in the Congressional Quarterly. They called this bill “a monument to obfuscation” “convoluted.” I take exception to those terms and the conclusion intended by the article that we are hiding our expenditures. Our Congressional expenditures are probably more widely disclosed-in more detailand more intensely scrutinized by the press—than any her agency of government-or business or any other institution that I can think of, including those larger cabinet agencies in the Federal government.

Here in the report issued every three months by the Clerk of the House of Representatives is over 1,900 pages of every expenditure made by every Member of the House, every Committee of the House, and every administrative office in great detail.

It is certainly not an arcane report, and it can't be described as an effort to hide our expenses. Annual financial disclosure reports are filed with the Clerk by members and senior staff as required by statute and are available to the press and public upon request.

The article complained that we have five appropriation accounts that fund Committees. For some reason that was used as an example of obfuscation in the appropriations process.

Well, we do fund Committees from several accounts, depending upon the purpose funded. One account is the core professional staff authorized for each House standing Committee by House Rule XI. Each salary expenditure from that account can be identified in the Clerk's report.

Another account is for the investigative funds required by each Committee. These are the non-legislative activities of the Committees and include Aging, Hunger, and other Special Committees that do not have legislative jurisdiction. These are activities separate from those authorized by House Rule XI. That appropriation is based on the authorization approved each year by the House made in the annual Administration Committee funding resolution. Each of those expenditures is detailed in the Clerk's report. The Allowances and Expenses appropriation contains funds for stationery and stenographic reporting of committee hearings. Those expenditures are detailed in the Clerk's report.

We have separate investigative funds appropriated for the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee. Each of these have been authorized by separate legislation enacted many years ago. Their distinction has been maintained by the House in order OVERALL APPROPRIATION REQUEST The budget we are going to consider totals $2.1 billion. The total does not include Senate items, which will be considered in the other body.

Of the portion of this budget which will be considered by the Subcommittee, $1.28 billion is for Congressional Operations alone. The balance of the funds requested, which totals $808 million, support statutory, administrative, and other kinds of activities of the Legislative Branch which are performed for the Executive Branch and for the public-at-large. These activities include such agencies as the Library of Congress, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. We should point out that there is far more than $2.1 billion in appropriations included. There are a number of other activities managed by the agencies covered by our bill—a number of trust and gift funds, the copyright royalty fund, which is about $600 million itself, service fees and other reimbursements.

There is also the Government Printing Office revolving fund which is the method GPO uses to provide printing services for the entire Federal government. Under Title XLIV and the Government Corporations Act, we annually authorize the operation of this fund. That is almost $1 billion, which is not scored against the bill because it is derived from charges to other agency appropriations. The actual funding covered by the agencies in the Legislative Branch, therefore, is not $2.1 billion (plus the Senate), but over $4.7 billion estimated for fiscal year 1993. So the sum and the scope of these activities are much larger than most realize.

FY 93 COMPARED WITH FY 92 I would like to make some comparisons from last year's bill. Last year the fiscal year 1992 bill was an increase of about 4.1 percent over the fiscal year 1991 appropriations for Legislative Branch activities. These funds are primarily for staff and computers. We do not have a large hardware or grant program in this particular bill. This is primarily an administrative operation. We occasionally have some capital outlay related to the Architect's budget, however, in most cases we are talking about people and the supplies, equipment, and other things that make the Members and Staff more productive and efficient.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMPARED WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH I would like to compare our budget with several comparable Executive Branch personnel intensive programs and indicate what their increases were last year to put in perspective the increase in the Legislative budget. In the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Policy Development had a 9 percent increase last year, the Office of Management and Budget had a 7.4 percent increase, the departmental management at the Department of Education had a 6.5 percent increase, the departmental offices at the Department of Treasury had a 10 percent increase last year, the Administration of Foreign Affairs at the Department of State went up 18.9 percent, and the departmental offices at the Department of Interi

« ZurückWeiter »