[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 111 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5378-H5381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2551, 
and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California). Is 
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 359 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in

[[Page H5379]]

the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2551.

                              {time}  0913


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 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, 
with Mrs. Biggert (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
July 21, 2011, amendment No. 11 printed in the House Report 112-173 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
July 21, 2011, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in House Report 112-173.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  There is appropriated, for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the 
     Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (2 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), 
     hereby derived from the amount provided in this Act for the 
     payment to the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust 
     Fund $2,500,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, for 23 years, Congress had the benefit of a 
really excellent organization, the Office of Technology Assessment. The 
OTA helped Congress look at the policy implications of new 
technologies. Then 16 years ago, OTA was defunded. When Congress turned 
out the lights, they argued that other organizations would provide what 
OTA did--think tanks, academies, universities.
  We now have 16 years of evidence that we have not gotten from these 
other sources what we got from OTA. We need OTA now more than ever, and 
my amendment would shift a mere $2.5 million into OTA to breathe life 
back into this important agency that had a great record of improving 
congressional decisionmaking, preventing tax dollar waste, and 
generally improving the debate on many policy issues.
  OTA is still on the books; it was simply defunded and, with this 
amendment, can be funded again. The money comes from a well-funded, 
little used trust fund for Capitol building revitalization.
  The OTA produced thorough, balanced nonpartisan studies on a huge 
variety of policy-relevant subjects. Listen to some of the reports, all 
produced by OTA in the years before it was defunded 16 years ago:
  Adverse Reaction to Vaccines, Retiring Old Cars to Save Gasoline and 
Reduce Emissions, Environmental Impact of Bioenergy Crop Production, 
Testing in Schools, Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease.
  Think about it; these studies, a few of the many on issues of great 
concern to us today, were written before 1995. The OTA was the best 
tool Congress has had to deal with our inability to look forward, to 
recognize and comprehend trends, to find perspective in problem 
solving--in other words, our congressional attention deficit disorder.
  Sixteen years ago, Congress hoped to save money by cutting OTA, and, 
in the process, we lost one of our best opportunities to save money by 
avoiding costly mistakes. It is documented that OTA saved taxpayers 
several hundred million dollars by understanding the best IT system for 
use by the Social Security Administration, millions of dollars of 
savings through better Agent Orange programs, billions of dollars by 
avoiding a poorly constructed Synfuels Corporation.
  Now, not every OTA project found favor with everyone. Some in 
Congress did not like to hear OTA call into question some of the 
extravagant claims of the missile defense contractors. But history 
shows OTA was right, and the missile defense folks at the Pentagon have 
spent a decade working around the problems uncovered.
  Some in Congress complained that OTA reports did not have the quick 
turnaround of, say, CRS, but that is just the point. OTA is the 
antidote to the myopia that comes from our very short attention cycle.
  OTA never advocated policy solutions; it didn't play politics. These 
are our jobs, but we need help. OTA was of Congress and for Congress. 
They knew our language and our decisionmaking framework. That's why our 
organizations never really filled the void created by the defunding of 
OTA.
  If we had a functioning OTA in recent years, I think there's little 
doubt that we could have been more aware of and better prepared to deal 
with looming shortages of vaccines, to incorporate new designs for 
flood control levees, to extend high quality medical care to rural 
regions, to employee effective techniques for oil spill cleanup, or to 
reduce the risks of cell phone hacking, to name just a few issues of 
current interest.
  The Office of Technology Assistance is not, and never was, a panacea. 
However, it is the best institutional tool we have had to recognize the 
policy implications of technology trends, to digest arguments involving 
technology, to expose some of our own blind spots--in other words, to 
illuminate and inform our legislating.
  We in Congress have not distinguished ourselves in recognizing and 
comprehending trends and implications of technology. Now, most of our 
colleagues here in this body do not know OTA ever existed. Most Members 
do not miss it. This shows, I think, just how badly we need it. Always 
the first step in dealing with a shortcoming is acknowledging that we 
have it. We badly need OTA.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0920

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate very much the gentleman from New Jersey's passion for 
this program. He mentioned that they turned out the lights in 1996, 
some 15 years ago, and I can't help but wonder why the lights haven't 
been turned on in the last 15 years.
  I talked to the gentleman yesterday, and I didn't know much about the 
OTA, but I couldn't help but wonder why, in the midst of the financial 
mess that we find our country in, he would pick this time to try to 
resuscitate a program that has lay sleeping for 15 years. I don't know 
whether he has tried every year to resuscitate this program and nobody 
was listening. I hope he has tried before. There were probably times 
when money was more plentiful and he might have had a better chance of 
bringing back a new program, a little more government, but I think this 
is just bad timing.
  I told him that if he wants to continue to try to educate the Members 
and tell them what a wonderful program this was up until 1996, there 
may be some day that it would be resuscitated. But the Members should 
know that in 2008 we gave $2.5 million to the Government Accountability 
Office to do these kind of technological assessments, and they've been 
doing that for the last 4 years.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. In answer to your two questions, the first is, as I said, 
the fact that this body doesn't know that it lacks OTA is the strongest 
argument of how badly we need it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, reclaiming my time, if this was simply a question 
of education, I hope the gentleman has been working diligently for the 
past few years as hard as he worked for the last 24 hours to make 
people aware and to crank this thing back up. But again, this is the 
wrong time to try to start a new government program.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOLT. As for the funding, there is an offset from a little-used 
fund, a

[[Page H5380]]

trust fund for building revitalization that is unlikely to be spent in 
the coming year.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Reclaiming my time, that's an interesting question too. 
I appreciate that question. And that $30 million is there to use to 
make sure that we protect the health and safety of people in our 
buildings here.
  So I understand it won't cost any more money, but it's just a brand-
new Federal program that I think is not a good time to be trying to do 
that. Again, if you've been trying to do that for the last 15 years and 
no one has been listening, then it must not be all that great a 
program. But once again, I appreciate your being a champion of that, 
and maybe someday it will come back to life.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chair, to answer the question about whether it's a 
new program, it isn't. It was defunded back in '96.
  Since 2008, through GAO, we have been trying to fund it through their 
end and build it up since then, but still a lot of folks didn't 
understand that this body really does need the kind of technological 
development in the public and private sector and harness outside 
experiences in the form of advisory panels and peer review, something 
that GAO and CRS cannot do, and we can do it through this program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, I would just simply say, as I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, again, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing it to our attention. It seems strange that it hasn't been 
funded for the last 15 years. I think this is not the year to crank it 
back up, resuscitate it. I think we have plenty of bipartisan research 
that's available to the Members. And maybe there are some private and 
nonprivate corporations, big foundations that might want to do this on 
a voluntarily basis. But again, I urge a negative vote.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chair, I want to speak about an amendment Mr. Moran is about to 
offer. This is about the use of Styrofoam in our cafeterias. You may 
remember that in 2007, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi established the 
Greening the Capitol program, and the goal was to make the U.S. House 
of Representatives a national leader in resource stewardship and 
sustainable business practices, and we made significant progress.
  One of the places where we made progress was we replaced the 
Styrofoam in the cafeteria and used recyclable dishware. We are now 
back to Styrofoam. McDonalds doesn't use Styrofoam. Years ago, 
McDonalds and other fast food restaurants replaced Styrofoam with 
recyclable paperboard containers. There is no reason we can't do that. 
There is no reason we shouldn't do it.
  Polystyrene is practically unrecyclable. Most polystyrene containers 
end up in landfills and incinerators. There are cancer-causing 
chemicals that are used during its manufacture. In 1986, the EPA report 
on solid waste named polystyrene manufacturing the fifth largest 
creator of hazardous waste.
  We should adopt the Moran amendment and do it the right way.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
July 21, 2011, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed 
in House Report 112-173.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:


         limitation on use of funds for polystyrene containers

       Sec. 211. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to obtain polystyrene containers for use in food 
     service facilities of the House of Representatives.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, at the beginning of the year, the House 
did away with the composting program that had been part of the Green 
the Capitol Initiative. It has been a success. People around the 
country were watching it and in fact following the example that we set. 
But at the beginning of the year, as I say, the House of 
Representatives instituted the use of polystyrene containers instead of 
clean, biodegradable material.
  My amendment would limit the use of funds made available by this 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill to obtain polystyrene products 
in our food service facilities. We should show our commitment to the 
health of our visitors and our employees and to the future of our 
environment. We should lead by example. That's the program that we had 
in place until this January.
  The House should be using recyclable and biodegradable products and 
should be avoiding polystyrene foam packaging. We should be a model 
institution for others to follow. As the gentleman from Vermont said, 
over 20 years ago, McDonalds and other fast food restaurants replaced 
polystyrene foam with recyclable and paperboard containers. Making that 
our standard is the least we can do.
  The House of Representatives is the only member of the Capitol 
Complex to revert to foam packaging. Neither the Senate, the Library of 
Congress, nor the Capitol Visitors Center food service centers use 
polystyrene products. Congress should be setting the standard for 
sustainability in the 21st century. We should be leading by example.
  And my amendment provides a way through which we can show that 
leadership to the thousands of constituents who visit our offices each 
year.
  Polystyrene is practically unrecyclable. Most polystyrene containers 
end up in landfills or incinerators; and problems with polystyrene 
include cancerous chemicals that are used during its manufacture, 
minimal recyclability, enormous bulk during disposal, and toxic 
byproducts that are released during incineration.
  A 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing 
process the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste, and toxic 
chemicals leak out of these containers into the food and drink they 
contain and endanger the human health and reproductive systems of the 
people who visit the Capitol and who work in the Capitol.

                              {time}  0930

  105 Members have sent a letter to House leadership asking that they 
eliminate polystyrene from House food service operations. My amendment 
would do just that by limiting the funds made available in this act 
from being used to obtain polystyrene containers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute simply to give you 
three good reasons why we should defeat this amendment.
  Number one, it really doesn't do anything because we don't spend any

[[Page H5381]]

money in this bill for House restaurant services. They are funded 
through a revolving trust fund, and that money comes from another 
source. So it wouldn't have any impact in the first place.
  Number two, if it did have any impact, all it would do is raise the 
cost of everything in the restaurants, which would be passed on to the 
folks. That's not a great thing, to spend more money.
  Number three, my last good reason, the gentleman mentioned that this 
year there was a bipartisan letter from the chairman of the House 
Administration Committee along with the ranking member to say we tried 
this program and we're going to end it.
  So for those three reasons, I think it is appropriate to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, with regard to the argument that the 
gentlemen makes, first of all it seems to me that we should set 
ourselves on record, and the appropriations bill is the ultimate source 
of funding for the Capitol complex. But the argument that this will 
save money it seems to me is deficient when we are talking about human 
health. I mean, we could choose not to spend money on purifying our 
water. We'd save a lot of money. Just let people drink out of the tap 
or get their water wherever. But we feel that the health of our 
employees and our constituents who visit us is important enough that we 
should spend that extra money.
  Science is telling us that, in fact, toxics leak from this material 
into the food and the drink that our employees and our constituents are 
using. We may not be as fully aware of that, but we know that 
polystyrene is a toxic material. It seems to me we should err on the 
side of caution, particularly when the health of our employees and our 
constituents is concerned.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, Chairman Lungren, the chairman of the House Administration 
Committee and the author of the letter that ended the program in 
January.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me just reiterate, this came to my attention as chairman of the 
House Administration Committee when we received a letter from the 
Democratic side of the aisle as part of the transition team 
recommending that we discontinue this part of the greening initiative 
process, Greening the Capitol process; that is, this one did not work. 
It was a Democrat who told us we ought to get rid of it.
  So once I heard that, I also heard complaints from both Democratic 
and Republican Members of the House and their staffs that the 
recyclable utensils we had didn't work--didn't work--and they asked for 
something that did work. And so we cancelled the program.
  This idea about Styrofoam being a real health hazard, Linda Birnbaum, 
who is the toxicologist who heads the government agency that declared 
styrene a likely cancer risk, said this: Let me put your mind at ease 
right away about Styrofoam. In finished products, certainly styrene is 
not an issue.
  The gentleman has said, and the other gentleman from Vermont said, 
that we ought to follow McDonald's. They no longer have this product. 
Well, yesterday my staff went out and got this product from McDonald's, 
which is Styrofoam; and got this product from McDonald's, which is 
Styrofoam; and got this product from McDonald's, which is Styrofoam. So 
I don't know where they get this information.
  Lastly, they should understand that polystyrene is approved as safe 
for use in food service by the FDA. Anything that contains food product 
that comes into contact with individuals must be approved by the FDA. 
This is approved by the FDA.
  Also, this week we are receiving bids back from our request for 
proposal on trying to get a waste energy recycling program to get rid 
of the waste that we have here on the Hill. This is to turn it into 
energy by way of heat energy and capture any of the offensive by-
products that may be produced. This is what we are doing.
  Look, you can have good science and you can have bad science. You can 
have smart science and you can have dumb science. You can have science 
or you can have no science. Now, I'm not sure which of the latter 
categories this proposal falls into, but it's not science. Science 
suggests that this is something that ought to be appropriate.
  There are any number of producers of polystyrene in Members' 
districts around this country. There are 2,100 users of it. This 
amounts to billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands 
of jobs, 8,000 just in California alone.
  So once again, we are using bad science to scare people. And what's 
the impact? It's going to cost more money. I approved of this program 
because it saves a half a million dollars in a single year--half a 
million dollars. It will save energy, and we will have literally no 
residue when we move from waste to energy production. It's a win/win/
win situation.
  By the way, members of our staffs have thanked me for doing this. 
They now have utensils that actually are usable.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, first of all, the letter that was sent did 
not request polystyrene products by any means. It was referring to 
another product that was corn based. Certainly Mr. Brady was not 
recommending dangerous Styrofoam material.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, before I came here to Congress, I was in 
the restaurant business. We had to please the customers that we served. 
We certainly couldn't give them an inferior product. Only in 
Washington, D.C., would we spend more and get less. The gentleman from 
California has referenced $500,000 a year more in cost, and if you did 
a survey of the people who used those products, it would be dismal.
  I had the experience of putting a fork in a hot piece of meat one 
day, and it melted. That is ridiculous. We in Congress should not give 
inferior products to people who work here and serve here, and spend 
more money for it.
  So with that, Madam Chairman, let's just do the commonsense thing 
here and get a product that works and spend less money.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren of California) having assumed the chair, Mrs. 
Biggert, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the 
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________