Date: 2015-05-19
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by congratulating Chairman GRAVES on his maiden voyage as a chair of an appropriations subcommittee. I know that he was diligent and focused. and we found agreement where we could. and where we could not agree. I appreciate his willingness to discuss it in a congenial and thoughtful manner. Today. we consider the smallest of the appropriations bills. and. while that is the case. it is one that does fund an entire branch of our government. The bill provides. as the chairman mentioned. $3.3 billion to the legislative branch. without Senate items. and is equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Unfortunately. this represents the third year in a row of flat funding for the overall legislative branch. Certain agenciesthe Architect of the Capitol and the Government Publishing Officeare cut below fiscal year 2015 to support increases in other agencies. I know if there was overall relief in the budget allocation. we would see more investment in the staff and facilities in the legislative branch. but we are starting to cut into bone in some places. and it is truly unwise. It is regrettable that this bill is. as are all of the other appropriations bills. bound by spending limits set by the Republican budget resolution that continues sequestration. The President put forward a plan that will avoid sequestrations harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Unfortunately. the Republican budget does not at least meet the Presidents plan halfway. As we look to conference with the Senate later in the year on appropriations bills. I am hopeful that both parties and the President can come together for another reasonable bargain that gives us more room for discretionary programs. This bill is being considered under a structured rule. as is tradition. Twenty amendments were filed. seven of which were filed by Democratic Members. Regrettably. the Rules Committee only made three Republican amendments in order. all of which would further erode the Legislative Branch bills funding. No Democratic amendments were made in order. even though several were aimed at improving the lives of our restaurant workers whose plight was played out in very public display in the last several weeks. Last night. in the Rules Committee. I asked the committee to attempt to find some parity. Mr. Chairman. between the majority and minority with regard to amendments made in order. instead of parity. the minority was completely shut out of the process. As a result of the allocation. several infrastructure projects with life and safety elements are not funded in this bill. even though we have been committed to funding those in past years. Cutting necessary upgrades to our elevators will not get us out of debt. what it will do is get people stuck in our elevators. We should not be surprised if an accident happens because we didnt address important lifesafety projects. This bill. as I have said many times before. is not the sexiest of the 13 appropriations bills. but it is one that is incredibly important. and it is important that we keep the people who visit the Capitol and work in the Capitol safe. and this bill makes it less likely that we will be able to do that. There are not many new initiatives in the bill. given the allocation. but I am pleased that the bill recognized the importance of the Nations copyright laws by providing some of the requested increase. The Copyright Office must improve the backlog of registrations. as well as their business processes. Currently. customers can only submit documents on paper. which the Copyright Office turns into a digital format. which is a glaring inefficiency. It is 2015. the 21st century. Our Copyright Office should not be conducting 21st century business in a 20th century format. The Copyright Office said it best itself in a report released in February of this year: There is a widespread perception that our licensing system is broken. Songwriters and recording artists are concerned that they cannot make a living under the existing structure. which raises serious and systemic concerns for the future. Music publishers and performance rights organizations are frustrated that so much of their licensing activity is subject to government control. so they are constrained in the marketplace. Record labels and digital services complain that the licensing process is burdensome and inefficient. making it difficult to innovate. I am glad to see that this bill is beginning to address necessary upgrades. Mr. Chairman. I am also concerned with the cut to the Government Publishing Office in the underlying bill. This office was formerly known as the Government Printing Office. Congress changed the name in December to reflect what the agency actually does in this digital world. The office publishes information online and plays a vital role in Congress transparency. Unfortunately. GPOs request to continue to improve its online site. as it has been allowed to do each year before this one. even under full sequestration. was denied in the bill. The cut to GPOs online site continues to raise the concern from some that GPO could ultimately decide to charge the public for access to legislative documents. as was recommended to them by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2013. I agree with Representatives CANDICE MILLER and BoB BRADY. the chair and ranking member of House Administration. who wrote to GPO. stating: "Charging the public to access legislative data and documents would be a colossal setback to the progress Congress has made to improve transparency and access to legislative information." They also said charging the public "would be a direct assault on our ability to engage Americans in a process that is of great consequence to their livelihoods." GPO indicated at the time of the MillerBrady letter that it had no plans to charge users for what should be public information. but what choice are we leaving them if we dont continue investing in their online systems? Also included in the bill is a requirement that the Architect seek approval. as the chairman described. from the House Committee on Appropriations and the Government Accountability Office for any project or phase of a project over $5 million. I support strong oversight. as I have demonstrated many times over the last 8 years. but I do question whether or not the low threshold would unnecessarily hold up the progress of essential projects. We should require the assistance of GAO to review projects on the scale of the Cannon building restoration. I have asked GAO to come in and get involved very specifically in a number of things where accountability was a concern. but I question the use of GAOs resources on projects as small as $5 million. That begins to micromanage beyond what is reasonable. To end on a more positive note. I am pleased that we were able to provide $10 million to add to the House historic buildings revitalization trust fund. We have been banking funds for our large projects over the last several years. which is imperative to help ensure we avoid getting caught flatfooted if we experience unexpected costs in the future. As I conclude. I want to. again. thank Chairman GRAVES for an open dialogue as he crafted this bill. I did have a lot of opportunity to talk with him about the details of this bill and offer suggestions. many of which he took. Again. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman as the bill moves to the Senate and then on to conference. I particularly want to thank our incredible staff. one of whom is sitting next to me. Shalanda Young. and the rest of our staff. Liz Dawson. Chuck Turner. on the majority side. and Jenny Panone. as well as Jason Murphy. with Chairman GRAVES personal office. and Rosalyn Kumar. on my personal staff. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair. I reserve the balance of my time.