[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


H.R. 1854, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT CONFERENCE REPORT 
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996



                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 6, 1995
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member rises in support of the 
conference report on H.R. 1854 and is pleased that this measure 
includes a reduction of $75 million for the General Accounting Office 
[GAO] below the fiscal year 1996 funding level. This Member is 
particularly pleased that the House and Senate conferees further 
reduced the funding level for GAO by $19 million below the House-
approved fiscal year 1996 level.
  Mr. Speaker, during the first days of the 104th Congress, this Member 
wrote to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of 
the House Appropriations Committee, as well as the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Budget Committee, to express this 
Member's strong support for reduced funding levels for GAO. This Member 
is pleased with the action taken which confers with this Member's 
request for reducing funding for GAO.
  For some time, this Member supported a reduction in funding for GAO. 
In fact, during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 legislative 
branch appropriations bill, this Member offered an amendment to cut 
funding for GAO by 5 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. 
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a close vote.
  The $374 million fiscal year 1996 funding level for GAO included in 
the conference report represents a decrease of $75 million below the 
fiscal year 1995 level. During last year's deliberation of the 
legislative branch appropriations bill, the House approved a funding 
level of $439.5 billion, an increase of $9.4 million. In addition, the 
fiscal year 1995 conference report then included $449 million for GAO, 
$10 million more than the House bill. This Member commends the 
conferees for reversing this outrageous trend in funding for GAO.
  This Member strongly believes that GAO is an agency where growth has 
been out of control, and that it is an agency which has not been 
responsive to individual Members, especially to the requests of 
Republican Members during our long tenure in the minority. This Member 
also believes that the quality of work produced by the GAO is shoddy. 
While the quality of the work varies dramatically, all products are 
given the same kind of credibility simply because they are GAO 
products. The level of resources provided to produce these products has 
been excessive and has grown disproportionately when compared with 
other congressional support agencies. In addition, GAO resources have 
also been used for consultants, training, and other unnecessary 
expenses. Concern has also been expressed that GAO is more interested 
in getting headlines than in supporting the Congress with the required 
information. This Member has also been concerned by the funds that have 
been spent to lavishly renovate GAO's offices. This renovated space 
includes plush conference and meeting rooms which seem excessive for 
the scope of work performed at GAO. The leadership and staff of the GAO 
ought to visit the staff here on Capitol Hill to understand something 
about crowded staff office conditions and about the absence of required 
conference rooms for meetings with constituents.
  Now let's examine the GAO workload. From 1985 to 1993, GAO 
investigations doubled from 457 per year to 915. In addition, GAO's 
budget jumped from $46.9 million in 1965 to our current spending level 
of $449 million, a nearly 1,000-percent increase in unadjusted dollars.
  While the number of full-time equivalent positions at GAO has been 
reduced additional cuts are still needed to account for the past growth 
at this agency, which this Member will outline. In 1980, funding for 
GAO staff cost $204 million. By 1985 that had grown to $299 million. In 
1988 it was $330 million, and in 1989, $346 million. The average
 increase between 1980 and 1990 was 8 percent per year. Then, in 1991, 
GAO was increased by 14 percent, to a total of $409 million. In 1992, 
GAO received another 8 percent increase to $443 million.

  According to a Democratic study group [DSG] special report issued on 
May 24, 1994, January 1994 personnel totals for GAO were 4,597. This 
level was nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 for the entire 
Library of Congress--the largest library in the world--which also 
includes the staff of the Congressional Research Service.
  According to this same study, in 1994, GAO's staffing level was 
nearly 2\1/2\ times as large as the 1,849 House committee staff members 
during the 103d Congress, and more than one-half as large as the 7,340 
individuals employed by Members of the House. The DSG study also 
compared funding levels for the legislative branch from 1979 to 1994, 
in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to the DSG, the General 
Accounting Office received one of the largest increases in funding for 
the entire legislative branch at an inflation-adjusted 13.5 percent 
during this time period.
  Funding for other areas of the legislative branch have actually 
declined since 1979, according to this study. For example, the Library 
of Congress received a 17.6 percent reduction, CBO was reduced by 3.8 
percent, and Members' staff was reduced by 6.4 percent in inflation-
adjusted dollars since 1979.
  Again, this Member would like to thank the conferees for their good 
judgment in facing the long-term reality of GAO and reducing funding 
for that agency. This Member urges his colleagues to support this 
funding level included in this conference report.


                          ____________________