If the gentleman would look at the transcript of the hearing on the Joint Committee on Taxation on February 13, the statement of the chairman of the Joint Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer, makes no reference to dynamic scoring. There is not any reference because, I believe, dynamic scoring is something that is still a controversial issue here, and I am not sure there is any mandate to the committee to handle that task. Dynamic scoring may, in fact, be what the committee needs additional staff for, but if we look at what was cited as the justification for the increase, I could not find it. A lot of committees would like to go back to the staffing level they were at in the past. That is the very point I am trying to make. This committee is being given the opportunity to go back because suddenly it is determined that there is work for them to do. Well, there are many other committees that have additional work they would like to do, but they are not being give this kind of latitude, they are not being given this kind of assistance.
Victor Fazio: “If the gentleman would look at the transcript of the hearing on the Joint Committee on Taxation on February 13, the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing staffing levels and dynamic scoring in relation to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
I just could not resist getting involved with my California friends in the debate in this measure, which I would like to tombstone as the Richard Mellon Scaife Empowerment Act of 1998. This gentleman from the well-known banking family of…
regrettably, I, too, rise to say I cannot vote in favor of fast track today. Many of my colleagues know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a number of us, helped lead the effort to…
I have been fortunate to serve on this subcommittee for 19 years, and I must say I have always enjoyed the bipartisan atmosphere in which the work has been conducted. Tom Bevill and John Myers were the senior members of each party for…
it is my understanding that crop insurance was not part of the legislation when it passed these individual Houses and was added simply on the same basis that the food stamp provision was. There is some inconsistency.





