[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1350-E1351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1854) making 
     appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes:

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the rule for this bill is frequently 
controversial because the provisions of the legislative appropriations 
bill affect our personal offices, our committees, and the offices and 
people supporting this institution. We all have personal knowledge of 
much of the subject matter, but there are many different perspectives 
about the standards we should be setting for ourselves and the way we 
should be administering the House. Those perspectives ensure 
controversy, and as the floor manager of the legislative appropriations 
bill for the last 13 years, I've managed my share of them. That honor 
now falls to my good friend, Ron Packard, as the new chairman of the 
Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee.
  This year 33 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee--however, 
only 11 were accepted.
  The structure of this rule stands in stark contrast to the open rule 
adopted for consideration of the military construction appropriations 
bill, which was considered immediately prior to this one.
  Although some good questions will be debated today, I am troubled by 
the important subjects that will be skipped.
  Thoughtful amendments were submitted on a number of issues affecting 
the way we conduct business here. Amendments were submitted including:
  First, ensuring the frequent flier miles earned by Government travel 
will only be applied to Government travel,
  Second, eliminating funding for the Joint Economic Committee, and
  Third, eliminating the discrepancy between congressional retirement 
benefits and other congressional employees.
  I'm particularly concerned that the Republican majority on the Rules 
Committee voted down three amendments to the rule offered by their 
Democratic counterparts:
  First, the Brewster/Harman lockbox amendment--this is a good concept 
that has been endorsed overwhelmingly by the House in the past. It's 
too bad we won't have a chance to consider it again when it comes to 
cuts in our won backyard.
  Second, an amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder to abolish the Joint 
Tax Committee. Mrs. Schroeder made a good argument at the Rules 
Committee comparing the Republican attitude toward the Select 
Committees of Hunger, Narcotics, Aging, and Children, Youth and 
Families--which were eliminated at the beginning of this Congress--and 
whether we should be considering joint tax in this same vein. 
Unfortunately, the House won't have a chance to make the comparison.
  Third, last but hardly least, a gift ban proposed by our freshman 
colleague, John 

[[Page E1351]]
Baldacci from Maine. The GOP freshmen came in with big reform plans for 
Congress. Now, when a gift ban is proposed, we're told that this is not 
the proper legislative vehicle for considering it, that it is too 
difficult to make these determinations in this bill.
  Fortunately, there are some good questions the House will have an 
opportunity to discuss:
  First, clerk-hire, official expenses, and mail. We'll be considering 
an amendment to cut costs more severely in the accounts affecting our 
personal offices even as a major cost-shifting effort is contemplated 
that will have a significant impact on the day-to-day operations of our 
personal offices.
  Second, the proper funding level for Members' mail. We've slashed 
funding for mail significantly in the last few years--we'll have 
another chance to see if the Members feel we've finally done enough.
  Third, the operation of the Government Printing Office and our 
depository libraries program. It is fitting that we consider the proper 
funding level for depository libraries especially as we move to an 
increased level of electronic dissemination of documents.
  I'm grateful to the Rules Committee that we will also have a good 
debate about the vital support organizations for Congress that help us 
do our job.
  There is a good amendment offered by Mr. Clinger and our colleagues, 
Mr. Portman, Mr. Condit, and Mr. Davis to add funding to the 
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] in support of the important work they 
have been given in the unfunded mandates legislation passed by Congress 
earlier this year. I'm concerned about the offset they are offering in 
abolishing funding for the American Folklife Center, but it is 
important to talk about the resources needed for CBO to do their job 
properly for us.
  Two good amendments take up the question of the Office of Technology 
Assessment [OTA]. My amendment is a straight restoration of OTA with a 
15 percent cut in line with our cut to the General Accounting Office. 
Mr. Houghton's amendment would cut OTA further--to $15 million--and 
make further savings by shifting their box on the organizational chart 
to Congressional Research Service.
  I'm also grateful to the Rules Committee for allowing us to take up 
this important question of the authority of the Joint Tax Committee 
regarding refunds for our largest taxpayers.
  This authority was, in my opinion, mistakenly eliminated in this 
bill. Joint tax works closely with the U.S. Treasury and provides a 
vital legislative check on their work, finding errors in approximately 
9 percent of the cases reviewed and easily paying for the limited 
resources we devote to this function each year. There are solid reasons 
for joint tax performing this function, and I'm pleased that we will 
have a chance to point those out to the membership.
  We will have some good debates. But the Rules Committee has left out 
too many important questions and has continued their intransigence in 
permitting the House to debate a gift ban. I oppose this rule, and I 
ask my colleagues to send this rule back to the Rules Committee to open 
up this debate and permit us to take up additional important questions 
that affect this institution and the way we conduct the people's 
business here.


                          ____________________