Wasserman Schultz statement at markup of 2016 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your first bill as Chairman. 

I joked during our hearings this year that I was “long in the tooth” on this subcommittee.  It is not a subcommittee assignment that many Members stay on for long, as it is the smallest of all the appropriations bills.  We spend less on the entire legislative branch of this government than we do on many individual government programs.  In the Defense Budget, this entire bill would be but a rounding error. 

The reason I have chosen to stay and work on this bill is because a strong legislative branch allows us to better serve our constituents and frankly, maintaining a strong legislative branch ensures we are able to hold our own relative to the executive branch, as the Founding Fathers intended.  It also has the ability to change the lives of the people that work for and with us.  I’m sure most of us read or watched the story last week highlighting the plight of a Senate cafeteria worker who lives on the street.  The same contractor that provides services to the Senate also does for the House and the Capitol Visitor Center.  Through this bill, we should and must ensure that there are no other Charles Gladdens who serve us during the day and sleep on the sidewalk at night.

Unfortunately this bill provides another year of flat funding, the third in a row.  With certain agencies – the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Publishing Office - sustaining cuts 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 unwise. 

The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  It is unfortunate the Budget Committee did not do the hard work to at least meet the President half way. 

As a result, although in past years we have done our best to fund critical life safety projects, many are not funded in this bill. Cutting necessary upgrades to our elevators will not get us out of debt. We should not be surprised if an accident happens because we didn’t address important life safety projects. 

As we look to conference with the Senate later in the year, I am hopeful both parties and the President can come together for another reasonable bargain that gives us more room for discretionary programs.

There are not many new initiatives in the bill given the allocation, but I am pleased this bill recognized the importance of the nation’s 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, a glaring inefficiency.  Our copyright office should not be conducting 21st century business in a 20th century format. 

The Copyright Office said it best 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."

So I am glad to see the Appropriations Committee moving in the direction of fixing a broken system.  The Copyright Office must provide the Committee with a plan on how it will improve its technology needs.  And Congress must decide how to best pay for these necessary upgrades.    This is an opportunity ripe for bipartisan compromise.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned with the Government Publishing Office cut in the underlying bill.  The office was formally known as the Government Printing Office.  With Chairman Cole we were able to change the name to reflect what they actually do in this digital world. The Government Publishing Office publishes information online and plays a vital role in Congress’ transparency.  Unfortunately GPO’s request to continue to improve its online site, as it has been allowed to do each year, even under full sequestration, was denied in the bill.  Mr. Chairman, this cut to GPO’s online site continues to raise the concern from some that GPO could ultimately decide to charge the public for access to legislative documents, as recommended to them by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2013.  I agree with 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 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…While we share GPO’s efforts to seek remedies to government-wide budget constraints that have impacted every corner of the federal government, in the interest of transparency and accessibility, we believe that publicly available documents should continue to be offered to the public with free access.”

Mr. Chairman, GPO indicated at the time that it had no plans to charge users for what should be public information.  But what choice are we leaving them if we don’t continue investing in their online systems? 

Also included in the bill is a requirement that the Architect seek approval from the House Committee on Appropriations, with GAO consultation, for any project or phase of a project over $5 million.  Mr. Chairman, 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, but I question the use of GAO’s resources on projects as small as $5 million.

To end on a more positive note, I’m 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 thank you for an open dialogue as you crafted this bill.  While we don’t agree with everything in the bill I look forward to continuing to working with the Chairman and all of the Members of the subcommittee to make improvements.