[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 110 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5312-H5316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1410
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2551, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 359 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 359
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
except pro forma amendments offered at any time by the chair
or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their respective designees for the purpose of debate. Each
such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 359 provides for a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2551. This rule represents a continuance of
fulfilling the new Republican majority's pledge to implement a more
open legislative process in providing for consideration of a bipartisan
list of 16 amendments, which is more than at any time dating back to at
least 1988. Twelve amendments were made in order in both the second
session of the 103rd Congress and the first session of the 104th.
This is in stark contrast to the past two Congresses in which
Democrat domination of this House provided for a collective grand total
of four amendments that were allowed to be debated during the past 4
years, when three were made in order during the first session of the
110th and one in the first session of the 111th.
In fact, even considering a Legislative Branch appropriations bill is
a change of pace from Democrat control when 2 years yielded no
consideration of standalone funding legislation, second sessions of
both the 110th and the 111th Congresses. In other words, with the
consideration of this single rule and bill, the House Republican
majority is making in order four times as many amendments on standalone
legislative branch appropriations legislation as were provided for in
the previous 4 years of liberal Democrat House domination combined.
Given the terrible budgetary mess we inherited from the liberal
Democrats, the underlying bill reflects the Republican House majority's
continued drive for restoring the fiscal restraint that is so
desperately needed in this city.
The bill appropriates $3.3 billion for legislative branch entities,
including $1.2 billion for House operations and $2.1 billion for
legislative branch agencies and other offices, including the Capitol
Police, Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the
Government Accountability Office, and Government Printing Office. This
total is $227 million, or 6 percent less than the current funding, and
$472 million, or 9 percent less than requested by the offices and
agencies covered by this bill.
The cuts come on top of the 2.5 percent, or $115 million, cut from
fiscal year 2010 contained in H.R. 1473, which was the fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution deal that was ultimately signed into law.
That bill provided $4.5 billion for the legislative branch, including
a reduction of $55 million in funding for the House from the year
before, and provides a 5 percent cut in Member, committee, and
leadership office expenses, except for the Appropriations Committee,
which offered a larger 9 percent cut.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this place in the Record
a budgetary outline of H.R. 2551.
Out of the $1.2 billion provided in this bill for House
operations:
$574 million is provided for operating members' offices,
$39 million (or 6%) less than current funding and $60 million
(or 9%) less than requested.
$293 million for allowances and expenses, $24 million
(representing 8%) less than current funding and $15 million
(or 5%) less than requested.
$153 million for salaries and expenses of House committees,
$10 million (representing 6%) less than current funding, and
$10 million (or 6%) less than requested. -and-
$178 million for functions performed by the various House
officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the
Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, $16
million (or 8%) less than current funding, and $26 million
(representing 13%) less than requested.
Furthermore, the bill provides funding levels for the
following agencies:
$490 million for the Architect of the Capitol, which is $37
million (or 7%) less than the current level, and $129 million
(or 21%) less than requested.
$340 million for the Capitol Police which is equal the
current funding, but $47 million (or 12%) less than
requested.
$575 million for various activities of the Library of
Congress which is $53 million (or 9%) less than the current
level and $91 million (or 14%) less than requested.
$113 million for activities of GPO which is $22 million (or
16%) less than current funding and $35 million (24%) less
than requested.
$44 million for CBO which is $3 million (or 6%) less than
current funding and $3 million (or 7%) less than requested.
$511 million for GAO which is $35 million (6%) less than
current funding and $46 million (8%) less than requested.
[[Page H5313]]
Even with all of these funding reductions, it's easy for those who
look at Washington, D.C., and see only political dysfunction to oppose
providing any funding at all for the legislative branch. While they may
see this bill simply as a vehicle for fattening the paychecks of
congressional staff and other undesirables, we must remember the
important work these support people provide in the function of the most
important branch of government.
Contrary to popular belief, congressional staffers work notoriously
long hours for relatively little pay and help us represent the views of
our constituents. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of constituents
throughout the country are helped to navigate the Federal bureaucracy
every day by our local case workers working in nearby district offices.
Their work here is hardly the self-enrichment many people are led to
believe by populist media sources eager to pose the catchiest
headlines.
At the same time, we must remember the many important functions this
funding provides in serving and protecting the American public. Given
ever-evolving security threats, this bill funds the Capitol Police who
protect critical infrastructure as well as secure the safety of the
thousands who visit Capitol Hill every day. And we thank the Capitol
Police for their invaluable service.
Furthermore, this bill's funding provides for the maintenance,
operation, development, and preservation of 17.4 million square feet of
buildings and more than 460 acres of land throughout Capitol Hill,
including the House and Senate office buildings, the U.S. Capitol,
Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme
Court buildings, the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Capitol power plant, and
other facilities which are needed for Presidential inaugurations and
other ceremonies of national importance.
The responsible funding level in this bill provides adequate funding
for the critical functions of the legislative branch but also
represents a step in the right direction towards enhancing government
efficiency. During these times of fiscal restraint, this bill
underscores the new House Republican majority's will to share in the
pain of difficult spending decisions.
{time} 1420
Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, it used to be that if funding levels
weren't rising fast enough, then Congress was seen as cutting a
program. That reality is no longer. When the new House Republican
majority says we're going to cut spending, we actually reduce spending.
This is the commonsense understanding of the American people which is
reflected in the underlying legislation. And I will urge my colleagues
over and over to support this rule and to support the underlying
legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to the rule; again, a rule that is not an open
rule that allows for different amendments to be brought forth under
this rule, as we have done with other appropriations bills. I also rise
in opposition to the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, when Americans think of Congress, they likely picture
our beautiful Capitol Building, its iron dome, the rotunda filled with
so many tourists each day, and so many sites on the National Mall and
around the Capitol complex. But that is really just the physical
infrastructure that we all live in and around. What really makes
Congress function, or fail to function, are its people, its human
capital, the staff that we have on the Hill that help keep Members
informed and able to effectively operate in an increasingly complex
world.
The bill before us risks squandering Congress' human capital. The
bill cuts the legislative branch by 6.4 percent below 2011 and 9
percent below 2010 funding levels. What that means is the hardworking
and underpaid and overworked men and women who staff our offices and
our committees, giving long hours--frequently giving up their weekends.
They'll be working through next weekend, Mr. Speaker. And I think there
are very few jobs where they are actually thrilled to be informed that
they actually have the weekend off. I know that not only myself but my
staff rejoiced in leadership's decision to allow us not to work this
weekend. I think that is a bar that most people assume they won't be
working on weekends. Well, we assume in many cases we are, and we are
actually very happy when we only have a 5-day workweek. That's the type
of dedication that brings people into this line of work.
This cut will result in layoffs and pay cuts for members of the
staff. And I would like to point out, it doesn't ask anything of the
highest paid people here, the Members of Congress. We make $174,000 a
year. I am a cosponsor of a bill to reduce that by 5 percent. But here
we are, cutting salaries for people making $30,000 and $40,000 a year
without cutting the salaries of any of us who make $174,000 a year.
Again, I think that's just wrong. I think it's consistent with the
Republican agenda of preserving tax cuts for people making over
$250,000 a year and making hardworking middle class families earning
$80,000, $100,000 a year dig deeper and pay more by cutting student
loans and programs that they benefit from.
So it shouldn't come as any surprise that that Legislative Branch
appropriations bill is consistent with that in that it asks great
sacrifices and at a time that we all agree our country has to cut back.
But it asks great sacrifices of those making $30,000, $40,000 a year
and takes nothing away and demands nothing of those who are earning
$174,000 a year, namely, the Members of Congress themselves.
Another concern about this bill is, instead of strengthening security
in the wake of violence against Members, including the events in Tucson
several months ago, instead of investing in inspectors, they've
slashed, under this proposal, every operation under the legislative
branch except for Capitol Police, but including the Sergeant at Arms
Office. Again, this represents a potential physical threat to Members
at a time when, unfortunately, our national discourse has become more
divisive than ever.
This bill also cuts the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent. I want to
explain, Mr. Speaker, what the Library of Congress does and how we, as
Members of Congress, rely on them. They are our objective research
service. My staff and I, along with other Members of this body, rely on
the Congressional Research Service. We get experts on issues on the
phone, bring them to our offices to gain their expertise on complicated
appropriations, budget issues, the peace process in the Middle East.
This information is a vital part of producing sound legislation.
They are our only objective source of information. By reducing their
ability to supply Members of Congress and our staff with quality
information, we only empower the lobbyists and the other exclusive
purveyors of information in this town who will give less objective
information than Members of Congress and their staffs will have to
increasingly rely on, rather than the Congressional Research Service.
The Government Accountability Office is cut by 6.4 percent. I want to
point out that the GAO saves money. Again, every $1 we spend at the GAO
results in $4 of savings. This is an office charged with finding
savings and excess on duplicative expenditures. So by cutting their
ability to do that, we actually increase wasteful spending elsewhere in
the budget. It's the congressional watchdog. Taking away funding from
the GAO means taking away methods on how we can alert policymakers to
emerging wasteful spending and wasteful programs throughout government.
GAO is proven to protect taxpayer dollars. It was GAO that warned
Congress about problems in the savings and loan industry. It was GAO
that warned Congress about the dangers of deficit spending. If there's
a looming issue that's not getting public attention but threatens
public dollars, the GAO needs to be there to do thoughtful research and
help Congress understand these issues.
I am also very concerned with the cuts to the Congressional Budget
Office, the 6 percent cut. The Congressional Budget Office is critical
to reducing our deficit. To cut Congressional Budget Office spending
now, at a
[[Page H5314]]
time when we are coming up with trillion-dollar plans to reduce our
deficit, would prove that the majority does not value proper accounting
or prompt consideration of important policy proposals. We want to make
sure that what we are passing has cost savings, reduces the deficit,
and cuts spending, and the taxpayers are protected. We also want to
make sure we pass legislation as expediently as possible. And if we're
cutting off funding to the Congressional Budget Office and we expect
layoffs, I'm not sure that we have the taxpayers' best interests at
heart.
There were also amendments that were brought forth in the Rules
Committee that, if we had an open amendment process, we would be able
to include; but, unfortunately, they were not made in order under this
particular rule, including a bipartisan amendment by Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and Representative Schweikert. The amendment would have
provided $100,000--not of new money but rededicated from another
account to name one of our rooms in the Capitol Visitor Center the
Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room.
Who is Gabriel Zimmerman? He is the first congressional staff person
in this country's history to die in the line of duty. He was with
Representative Giffords in the January 8 tragedy in Tucson, Arizona,
that struck this country and shocked our Nation and really tore through
the fabric of the congressional community. Representative Schweikert
and Representative Wasserman Schultz came together to provide a fitting
memorial for a member of our congressional family that died in the line
of service. Gabe Zimmerman was a loyal, dedicated public servant; and
he made the ultimate sacrifice to this country as the first
congressional staff person murdered in the line of duty in the history
of our country.
This distinction wouldn't have cost taxpayers any money and would
have recognized not only the devoted service of Gabe but also of the
thousands of other staff people on Capitol Hill and I think would have
been appropriate, particularly at a time when every Member's office
will be involved with pay cuts and layoffs as a result of the 6.5
percent cut, to show that beyond the dollars, the giving of your life
and the dedication of the staff that help keep us well informed in
making decisions in the best interests of the country is appreciated by
the institution of Congress as a whole.
I therefore oppose the rule, as well as the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado would have the
American people believe that we can't make any cuts in spending at the
Federal Government level, but I don't believe that argument is going to
go very far. The American people know that we can make big cuts in
spending at the Federal Government level, and Republicans are making
sensible cuts in spending at the Federal Government level. In the leg
branch, it's not a huge amount of money that we have control over; but
we believe, on our side of the aisle, that we should make spending cuts
everywhere.
Many millions of Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats
took control of this Congress in January of 2007. We had a 4.5 percent
unemployment rate when they took over, and now we've had north of a 9
percent unemployment rate for several years. Those people didn't have
any choice at all about whether they continued their income or not.
What we're saying is, we want to continue the vital functions, those
particularly that serve the American people. We want to keep this
Capitol looking great.
{time} 1430
We want to keep the Capitol Police force at full force. We want to
give them the tools that they need. But everybody in Washington, D.C.,
can work a little harder and spend a little less money to make it
easier on the American public, and that's what we're recommending in
this bill. And I believe this rule does a very good job of representing
the amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about what are the problems that
we're facing here, but I think it's better if I quote someone who put
some of the situation that we have here in perspective. And so I'd like
to quote a Washington Post article by Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant
essayist, who put forward this article.
He said other solutions are being suggested by ``the man who ignored
the debt problem for 2 years by kicking the can to a commission.
``Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report.
``Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even
mention the word `debt' until 35 minutes into the speech.
``Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing--it actually
increased the deficit--that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected
it 97-0.
``Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt plan speech. Asked in
Congress how this new `budget framework' would affect the actual
Federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf
replied with a devastating `We don't estimate speeches.' You can't
assign numbers to air.
``The flip-flop is transparently political. A clever strategy it is:
Do nothing and invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction
first; and when they do--voting for the Ryan budget and its now
infamous and courageous Medicare reform--demagogue them to death.
``And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax
increases. So first you get the GOP to seize the left's third rail by
daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize
the right's third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full spectrum
electrocution. Brilliant.
``And what have been Obama's own debt reduction ideas? In last week's
news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet
owners--six times.
``I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years--
that's not a typo, 5,000 years--it would equal the new debt Obama
racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this
tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since--
first in shekels, then in dollars--we would have 500 years to go before
we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.
``Obama's other favorite debt reduction refrain is canceling an oil
company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate
jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not have offset Obama's deficit
spending for February 2011.''
Mr. Speaker, there you have it: Liberal hypocrisy exposed in another
brilliant Krauthammer essay.
The choice before the American people is clear. We can either
continue accommodating the passions of the liberal elite in cementing a
bloated dependency state fueled by job-crushing tax increases, or we
can trim spending so private sector employers and innovators, who are
the real creators of wealth, can do what they do best in healing the
wounds of unsustainable government largesse.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply
cannot stand any kind of cuts. What they want are tax increases and
continued irresponsible spending.
Republicans are bringing a different message, a message from the
American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and also for his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to
the underlying bill.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee and former vice chair of
the Leg. Branch Subcommittee, I am deeply saddened by Republicans'
ongoing efforts to weaken and dismantle our democracy. The Leg. Branch
appropriation bill is simply an inadequate and misguided bill. We must
not gut one of the coequal branches of government. We should be working
to ensure that we are strengthening and preserving the most direct
voice the American people have in our government, the legislative
branch, especially the House of Representatives, the people's House.
Passing this bill will undermine one of the fundamental building
blocks of our democracy, and it will weaken our Nation. Failing to
provide adequate resources to the leg. branch will mean
[[Page H5315]]
that all of our congressional offices, both here and in our home
districts, will face cuts in staff. The constituent services that we
provide would suffer right when our people need them the most.
Our constituents rely on our staffs to help us develop sound
legislation and to provide constituent case work. Our constituents rely
on them to keep them informed about the complex and incredibly diverse
issues that fail our Nation each and every day.
Now, I worked as a staffer for my mentor and predecessor,
Congressman, Mayor, Ron Dellums; so I know very well how hard staffers
work to help us represent the American people. These staffers are paid
much less. They work more hours than most public employees, not to
mention the private sector employees.
We need to keep in place the resources necessary to attract the best
and the brightest to public service. When you gut this budget, you are
creating more unemployed people who will need to go on unemployment
compensation.
This is an example of the policies that Republicans are putting
forward to create more unemployment and a nonresponsive government. It
is vital that our district offices and our Washington offices are fully
staffed to make sure that our constituents--this is about our
constituents--that they will continue to have access to the services so
that they don't just get hung out there once again because, in this
hard economic time, many, many people are desperate and they need our
help.
This is just another signpost on the road to ruin during this ``good
luck'' Republican Congress. This bill says good luck to finding a job.
It says good luck to finding affordable health care. This bill says
good luck to keeping your home and your family intact. Good luck to
feeding your family and your children. When the public demands, as they
should, constituent services and help, this bill says, good luck to our
constituents.
Representative democracy is really on its way out the door. Case work
will be greatly diminished with these unrealistic budget cuts. Bills
like this clearly show the Republican agenda for what it is. It's
really: Good luck, you are on your own.
Let me ask Members to please oppose this bill because this is not
good. It's not good for our staffs; it's not good for our constituents;
it's not good for the country.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina, who sits right next to me in the Rules Committee and
has for a number of years. And I appreciate not only her leadership but
her service.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stand up just as a Member of this body. We're
all equal representatives in this body, and I do recognize that there
are people that come down here and talk about all the layoffs that will
occur and all the hard times and people losing their insurance and all
the dramatic things that will happen.
Mr. Speaker, we need a 6 percent cut. We need a 6 percent cut because
we've been receiving outlandish increments of increases for a number of
years, including the first year, I believe, that Speaker Pelosi was in,
a 10 percent increase.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are having a tough time. But the
American free enterprise system, when faced with these opportunities,
and I think it's what will happen in our offices, we're all going to
look at each other; and instead of laying somebody off, we'll all
understand there's not enough money to go around and we're going to
have to all take a sacrifice.
{time} 1440
That's what I intend to do in my office, and I hope my employees will
understand that.
This is going to mean some changes, and sometimes change is hard. But
just to continue to receive more money because taxpayers, who control
the money--that taxpayers would expect us to just answer every one of
their questions and do every one of their things is an outlandish
example of a government out of control.
We need to make sure that our offices are just as responsible as
other areas of the government. It's time to cut back. It's time that we
take a hit. It's time that we join with the rest of the American people
and understand these are difficult times; these are difficult times
because government is too big, costs too much money, listens too
little, and now is unadaptive to the hard times themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I say let's vote for this Legislative appropriations
bill, and let's cut the amount of money that we have for ourselves in
the House of Representatives. A 6 percent cut helps lead the way, and
we can do that. That's why Republicans are in the majority; we can make
tough decisions in difficult times.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Now, again, I know how my colleague from Texas and my colleague from
North Carolina have discussed how tough these economic times are and
how Congress needs to tighten its belt, and that's true. But where is
the actual belt-tightening for Members of Congress ourselves? What are
Members being called upon to sacrifice? Did we cut our own salaries to
help spare layoffs for staff people making $25,000 a year? No. And how
about the many Members of Congress who proudly talk about living in
their offices. Are they going to start paying rent? They're essentially
living rent free on the government dime. They use electricity, water
and other taxpayer-paid-for resources. We have Members of Congress who
are squatters in government buildings. And as a businessman, I can tell
you that if I owned a piece of commercial real estate and decided to
start saving money or rent by living in my office, I would be violating
the law. So don't tell us that you're being frugal by living in our
office. You're living free at the taxpayers' expense, any Member who
does that.
And how about the cars that Members lease? I don't know too many
Americans who have jobs that give them a free car to use however they
choose, but Members of Congress have that benefit. And many abuse it
with car leases that cost as much as $1,000 a month or more. Now, I
appreciate there is an amendment on this issue, but those car leases
should be eliminated in this bill, not capped at $1,000. Members would
still be permitted to have cars that cost $950 a month paid for by
taxpayers, at the same time we're slashing salaries of staff people
making $25,000 or $30,000 a year.
In difficult economic times, it makes sense to cut back on
everything. It makes sense to cut back on our own perks before laying
off hardworking employees. Congress chose not to do this with this
bill, and the closed process associated with this bill does not allow
us to bring these proposals forward. When it comes time to cut, the
majority has said hit the little guy, leave the big guy alone, hit the
person who can least afford to go without. Talk about shared sacrifice
right up until it involves giving up something that benefits you or
your friends.
If you vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, please do not tell me that
you're willing to make the hard choices about the budget for the good
of the Nation. You have made the easy choices. This bill cuts Members'
day-to-day abilities to effectively represent constituents while
leaving all of the perks of office untouched.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on both the rule and the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that Members of Congress should
be extravagant in their spending in any way whatsoever, but I think
it's up to the voters to hold those Members responsible for what they
do. If there is a Member that is leasing a car that's paying an
exorbitant amount of money, then the voters should turn that person out
if they think they're wasting their money. I would certainly think that
person is wasting his or her money. That's up to the voters to take
care of.
We're doing our part here in the Congress. We are balancing between
making sensible cuts and making sure that the public is well served
when it visits Washington, D.C., and the public should be well served
by the individual Members. And I hope that if there are abuses on the
part of any Member of Congress, no matter which party he or she belongs
to, that the voters will look into that and take care of that
[[Page H5316]]
person. But that is not our exact responsibility here. Our
responsibility is, as it is everywhere, to allow a certain amount of
money to be spent in the Members' offices, and then each Member should
be held individually responsible.
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why America
needs this rule and this bill. Voting for these measures will allow the
House to continue its work toward resolving the debt crisis currently
gripping the Nation. As we continue this debate, we must remember the
simple truth that tax increases have been tried before and led us to
the mess that we have today.
We should not be raising taxes because tax increases do nothing more
than fuel parasitic, wasteful government spending. We are cutting the
spending for the leg branch in a very responsible way, and that's what
we should be doing. But it is past time that we pursue an innovative
idea, one that is unparalleled in modern American history, and that is
to cut spending and shorten the long arm of government that is
currently choking economic prosperity. That is what is happening in
every appropriations bill that we're passing.
As we rapidly approach our Federal debt ceiling, our economy is
struggling and people are looking for jobs. Americans crave
accountability and belt-tightening in Washington and need the Federal
Government to stop draining job-creating resources from the private
sector to fund misguided adventures in social engineering. They demand
action and they deserve answers.
H.R. 2551, for which this rule provides consideration, reflects the
House Republican majority's unending commitment to restore the fiscal
discipline that is so long overdue in this city. It represents a
sensible balance between the vital need for budget restraint and
funding the critical functions of the legislative branch.
Without compromising the safety or security of critical
infrastructure, this bill further trims the fat and encourages
efficiencies while demonstrating that we are not immune to feeling the
effects of much needed spending cuts that are so desperately needed
throughout our bloated Federal bureaucracy.
It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to vote for the
rule and the underlying bill so that we can begin to restore the trust
Americans have in their Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 359 will be followed by a
5-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 358.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 172, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 613]
YEAS--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--172
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hirono
Johnson (GA)
Landry
Rogers (MI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sullivan
Young (AK)
{time} 1513
Ms. CHU and Mr. COOPER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. KINGSTON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________