Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1591-H1597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 113TH CONGRESS

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
122, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses
of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One
Hundred Thirteenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the
resolution is considered as read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

Resolved,

SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH
CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Thirteenth
Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts
of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this
primary expense resolution, not more than the amount
specified in subsection (b) for the expenses (including the
expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named in
such subsection.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts
referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture,
$10,072,374; Committee on Armed Services, $13,127,070;
Committee on the Budget, $10,277,648; Committee on Education
and the Workforce, $13,905,526; Committee on Energy and
Commerce, $19,041,032; Committee on Ethics, $6,040,918;
Committee on Financial Services, $14,788,964; Committee on
Foreign Affairs, $14,776,224; Committee on Homeland Security,
$14,067,176; Committee on House Administration, $9,201,120;
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $8,779,516;
Committee on the Judiciary, $14,154,032; Committee on Natural
Resources, $13,111,658; Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, $17,880,874; Committee on Rules, $5,714,816;
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $10,565,510;
Committee on Small Business, $5,985,376; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $16,364,614; Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, $6,097,092; and Committee on Ways and
Means, $16,846,822.

SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

(a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1
for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the
amount specified in such subsection shall be available for
expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on
January 3, 2014, and ending immediately before noon on
January 3, 2015.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts
referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture,
$5,036,187; Committee on Armed Services, $6,563,535;
Committee on the Budget, $5,138,824; Committee on Education
and the Workforce, $6,952,763; Committee on Energy and
Commerce, $9,520,516; Committee on Ethics, $3,020,459;
Committee on Financial Services, $7,394,482; Committee on
Foreign Affairs, $7,388,112; Committee on Homeland Security,
$7,033,588; Committee on House Administration, $4,600,560;
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $4,389,758;
Committee on the Judiciary, $7,077,016; Committee on Natural
Resources, $6,555,829; Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, $8,940,437; Committee on Rules, $2,857,408; Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, $5,282,755; Committee on
Small Business, $2,992,688; Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, $8,182,307; Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
$3,048,546; and Committee on Ways and Means, $8,423,411.
(c) Review of Use of Funds in First Session.--
(1) Review.--None of the amounts provided for in section 1
for a committee named in subsection (b) may be available for
expenses of the committee after March 15, 2014, unless the
chair or ranking minority member of the committee appears and
presents testimony at a hearing of the Committee on House
Administration held prior to such date to review the
committee's use of the amounts provided for in section 1
during the first session of the One Hundred Thirteenth
Congress and to determine whether the amount specified in
subsection (b) with respect to the committee should be
updated on the basis of the review.
(2) Waiver.--The Committee on House Administration may
waive the application of paragraph (1) to any or all of the
committees named in subsection (b).

SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers
authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman
of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the
Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

Amounts made available under this resolution shall be
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a reserve
fund for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One
Hundred Thirteenth Congress.
(b) Balance.--The balance of the reserve fund under this
section shall be equal to the sum of the following:
(1) The amount by which the amount made available for
``House of Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing
Committees, Special and Select'' for fiscal year 2013 exceeds
the amount that would be made available for ``House of
Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing Committees,
Special and Select'' by division C of the Department of
Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 933, as
passed by the House of Representatives on March 6, 2013), as
reduced pursuant to the provisions of division D of such Act.
(2) The amount by which the amount made available for
``House of Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing
Committees, Special and Select'' for fiscal year 2014 exceeds
the amount made available for ``House of Representatives--
Committee Employees, Standing Committees, Special and
Select'' for fiscal year 2013.
(c) Allocation to Committees.--Amounts in the reserve fund
under this section shall be paid to a committee pursuant to
an allocation approved by the Committee on House
Administration.

SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

The Committee on House Administration shall have authority
to make adjustments in amounts under section 1, if necessary
to comply with an order of the President issued under section
251A or 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any change in
appropriations for the purposes of such section 1.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, 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 Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of House Resolution
115, which is providing for the expenses of certain committees of the
House of Representatives for the 113th Congress and which authorizes
committee budgets for the 113th Congress.
Earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on House
Administration held two very lengthy and very informative days of
hearings with our chairmen and with our ranking members from all of the
19 House committees. Each of them testified about their respective
budgets, the commitment to uphold the longstanding two-thirds, one-
third allocation between majority and minority offices; and most
importantly, Mr. Speaker, they talked about doing more with less, which
is a topic that we are all very, very familiar with.
This funding process and these discussions significantly impact the
legislative process as these committees are where, of course, the
legislation that comprise much of our work begins, where our vital
oversight functions occur, which is why throughout this process we
adhered, Mr. Speaker, to two very important principles. First of all,
we said we need to live within our means, and then prioritizing the
finite resources that we have provided to us

[[Page H1592]]

in the Congress by hardworking American taxpayers.
As we all know, sequestration went into effect on March 1, 2013, and
Congress must live with further cuts, just as every other agency of
government must live with similar cuts. As a result of the sequester,
the total committee authorization level must be reduced by
approximately 11 percent, in the 11 percentile range. And that means if
we authorize above that amount, then we will have to take the money
from somewhere else.
When ensuring that committees have adequate resources, obviously, we
have to consider their legislative objectives; we have to consider
their anticipated workload and authorize the finite resources available
in a way that best suits the needs of the House of Representatives as a
whole.
Although the sequestration is not certainly the ideal way to cut
spending, cuts are imperative. They must happen. Our government is too
big, too involved, and too costly. As those who are charged with the
care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example, and we must
control our spending. We must live within our own means.
Now, this may be a far more strict budget than many had hoped or
anticipated, but like so many Americans, we are coping with our
circumstances, and we are making cuts to our budgets in a way that any
American business or American family would have to, as every local unit
of government, every State around the country has had to do. Certainly
during these very trying economic times, we also have to make value
judgments and budget accordingly.
To match the available post-sequestration funding level, the total
authorization amount for House committees must be reduced, as I say, by
about 11 percent from the 2012 level; and, therefore, with very few
exceptions, each committee authorization has been reduced, again,
within that 11 percent range or certainly within a percentage point or
so of the 11 percent.
Based on the anticipated workload for the 113th Congress, the Budget
Committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Select Committee on
Intelligence have been given very much smaller reductions, a very
slight reduction from the 11 percent. But every committee certainly
will be faced with important oversight responsibilities for 2013.
However, given that getting our economy moving again and defending this
Nation are the foremost priorities that we face, the dire need for tax
and entitlement reform to help grow our economy, to create good-paying
private sector jobs and the increasing cyberthreats to our digital
infrastructure, it was determined by our committee that these three
committees certainly are the tip of the spear in doing some of the most
important work for the American people.
We must remain, as well, committed to leading by example in cutting
government waste, rooting out inefficiencies, and conducting essential
and efficient oversight of our vast administrative agencies.
House Resolution 115, Mr. Speaker, we believe fulfills that mission.
I would also point out that this House resolution not only reduces
committee expenditures, but it also authorizes total committee funding
for the 113th Congress at a level which is lower than 2005. I think
that bears repeating--a level lower than 2005. By comparison, overall
nondefense discretionary spending by the executive branch has actually
increased 16.7 percent since 2008--quite a big difference there.
As I said before, as chairman of the Committee on House
Administration, I certainly understand the challenges of stretching
committee resources, and I have a very deep appreciation for every
committee's ability to absorb these cuts and their commitment to
functioning at a high level, even with the reduced resources that they
have, and that is due certainly in no small measure to the outstanding
leadership that we have with each committee chairman and each ranking
member on all of our committees, really, all committed to delivering a
very high level of service to the American people.
Some of my colleagues, I know, have voiced their opposition to this
measure calling for a freeze in committee spending. They say that
freezing spending for committees at 2012 levels is a more balanced
approach. But since sequestration, we just don't have the money to
cover a freeze. We do not have the money.
So I would simply state that spending beyond our means, in my
opinion, is not a balanced approach. In fact, I would say it's a bit
irresponsible. As I said before, every American family, every small
business, every State and local unit of government must live within
their means, and so must the U.S. House of Representatives.

{time} 1510

Mr. Speaker, again, this resolution has required us to make some very
difficult but very necessary decisions. And I want to personally thank,
and certainly all of our committee members thank, each chairman and
each ranking member who testified before our committee, and our
committee staffs as well, who are often unrecognized for the vital work
that they do.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues to support House
Resolution 115, living within our means and prioritizing our finite
resources like the rest of America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 115
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 115 represents the next step in a slow
march towards making House committees incapable of conducting the
oversight with which they are charged and further limiting the power of
this equal branch of government.
Mr. Speaker, with these cuts, we are not talking about the loss of
new equipment, the next computer, or printer. No. With these cuts, we
are talking about gutting our capacity to do the jobs we were sent here
to do by the American people. The work product of our committees is
only as good as the talented men and women that we are able to employ.
And they are very able.
The House is lucky to have such a well-seasoned and skilled group of
individuals carrying out the people's business. In fact, this is one of
the things we always agree on--the quality of the people that work in
these committees. It is at the highest level. But for how long?
If this resolution passes, there will be a 21.3 percent reduction in
funding for committees since the 111th Congress. More appalling is the
26 percent cut the Judiciary Committee will sustain during the same
time, particularly as they move forward to address comprehensive
immigration reform that we all seem to agree on now and the initiatives
to reduce gun violence.
As the chairman of the Rules Committee stated last week when he
testified before our committee, ``We do not have something we can cut
or manage on a moving forward basis. We have by and large taken
ourselves down to the bare bones.'' Now we're down to the bare bones.
Repeatedly, we heard from committee chairs that the only thing they
have left to cut are personnel expenses.
The Veterans' Affairs chairman stated, ``We have no choice but to
find these savings in our personnel budget.''
And the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs said:

We want to make certain that those individuals who will
make a sacrifice and come up here and work for a reduced wage
will stay with us. There is a question of how long, deeply,
we can cut.

Of course there is a question, and I think the question is before us.
The chairs and ranking members of the House have been responsible
stewards--we have heard that already--and they have been. And they have
achieved incredible savings. But this resolution's lack of funding also
hurts our ability to find governmentwide cost savings.
In fact, it does just the opposite. The committees conduct oversight
over billions and billions of dollars of Federal spending and have
found savings within their respective agencies. However, without high
quality people that have the institutional knowledge and expertise,
they will sacrifice the ability to perform strong, responsible
oversight.
The chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
illustrated this best when testifying about the savings his auditors
were able to provide the government. He stated:

Cutting back for us is, in fact, an opportunity to lose the
very auditors that will

[[Page H1593]]

guarantee you multiple savings. We would like to work with
the committee to allow us and other committees to find
similar savings. But we must ask that you not allow the audit
committee to be reduced when, in fact, we can return you more
than 1,000 times our budget.

One thousand times. In Mark, it is only 100 times. Fourfold in other
parts of the Bible. Here is 1,000 times.
Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle have embraced the
idea of doing more with less. We have all grappled with the idea of not
filling empty positions, denying requests for travel and forgoing
necessary technology upgrades in our offices. But there is a point
where additional cuts undermine our ability to do our jobs effectively.
Based upon the testimony that we have received during our committee
funding hearings, I believe that there is a bipartisan agreement that
this funding resolution could represent that breaking point. In the
end, the American people will be the ultimate victims.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time
to yield as much time as he may consume to an outstanding member of the
House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 115, but I
appreciate, quite honestly, the concerns just raised. And let me try to
address some of them, if not all of them.
There are victims in this country, for sure. But the real
victimization will occur if this House, if this Congress, if this
President does not get ahold of the deficit and debt situation that we
are incurring. Right now, we are in the middle of debating different
budgets, the priorities that we have as parties, as Americans, et
cetera.
On the one hand, we have a budget that balances in 10 years--radical
for this town. On the other side, we have budgets that never, ever
balance. If we don't get ahold of these deficits so we can finally
start attacking the debt, and if we continue to leave to future
generations our bills--to me, Mr. Speaker, the most immoral thing I can
think of, really, that we can do in civic life is to leave our bills
for future generations to pay. There will be the victimization.
Yes, we are going to have a hard time at the committee level, and
certainly even with our MRAs that have been cut in the past, to try to
do our work. But what I heard in these committee hearings from our
chairman and our ranking members each is that they pledge to continue
their legislative and oversight activities despite these budget cuts.
So there is not going to be any victimization here with this House
resolution.
The other thing this House resolution does is finally lets us lead by
example, Mr. Speaker. How can we have a national family discussion? How
can we have a discussion about the morality of leaving our bills for
future generations to pay if we are not willing to suck some of it up
ourselves? And, yes, we are doing it. Do you know who else is doing it?
The military.
I would like to say here on the floor of the House that those excuses
should now be taken off the table. We are leading by example in what we
have cut through our MRAs already and this House resolution. And guess
what? So has the military.
Let's finally get to a discussion and action, more importantly,
regarding the real drivers of our debt--the social entitlement programs
of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And, yes, many of our
constituents will say, Hey, wait a minute. Don't call those social
entitlement programs. We paid into those, therefore, we should get out.
And that is true. But what is also true is that on average--let's take
Medicare, for example, Mr. Speaker--we are paying in about 40 percent,
again, on average, of what we are taking out. It is immoral, wrong, to
let that 60 percent get paid for by people who don't even yet exist
and, therefore, don't have a say in the matter.
House Resolution 115 lets us lead by example so that we can finally
get to the rest of the conversation about the drivers of our debt.
Guess what else? The interest we owe ourselves as private citizens--
and, more increasingly, other countries like China, countries that
don't necessarily have our best interest at heart, nor should they have
to have our best interest at heart--we are paying more to them in
interest because of this debt than we are spending on homeland
security, education, and roads combined.
That breeds weakness, that fosters instability, that creates
victimization. House Resolution 115 will give us the moral authority
and the real authority to continue having this discussion, to lead by
example, which is so well needed in this country right now at this
time. The fact of the matter is, we shouldn't have to have oversight of
the budgets of the executive branch if the executive branch and this
President were to lead and recognize the debt that we are in, the
deficits that we run, and rein in his own people, rein in his own
organizations, create a culture of doing more with less.

{time} 1520

As it has been famously stated by a former Governor in Indiana:
people will never miss the government that has been cut.
It goes without saying, with regard to individualism, people can do
more for themselves and people can do more for each other than any
faraway Federal Government program can. Let's continue leading by
example. Let's continue this fiscal fight that we are engaged in. Let's
pass--let's strongly support--House Resolution 115.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his work on the committee. I am pleased he is managing this bill today.
It's good for the next generation of Members to learn the procedures of
the floor this way--putting them right in the line of fire.
I would also like to thank the chairman for how she handled our
marathon hearings. I've had her job and know how difficult it is to be
juggling the schedules of all our fellow Members and of our fellow
chairmen and ranking members.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, though, in opposition to this resolution. We
have cut committee funding for the last 3 years. We are past the point
of cutting what we want, and we are now into cutting what we need--our
ability to attract and retain expert staff.
I asked the same question to every ranking member and every chairman
who came in front of us. I asked them, if they're into cutting their
personnel, whether or not they've thought in their own minds if it
would hurt them in the jobs that they could do and in the jobs they do
for the American people on those committees. Every man and woman said
it would be an issue for them, that they would have a problem. Again,
we cut in 2012 and gave people positions at lower salaries. These
people, without question, make double, triple, four times the amount of
money they can in the public sector. They're dedicated--they're
dedicated people--but sometimes dedication doesn't pay the bills that
they do acquire and that they do have.
Their main concern was keeping people on their staffs who had
institutional knowledge, people who had the knowledge of how this House
works. As you all know, when you first get here, it can be a quagmire--
you don't understand what's happening; it moves too fast--but these men
and women who are here for many years, they do know that, and they keep
this train running. To hurt them and not be able to retain them would
be a major, major disservice with just the institutional knowledge that
they have.
Again, I get it. I understand the cutting. I understand we've got to
cut some other people, but if we cut these staff members--the people
who have been here--and try to attract other people who can do the jobs
that our committee staffs do, I think that it would be hurting the
American people.
We need to defeat this resolution and give the committees the
appropriate resources that they need to do their basic work and to do
what the people sent us here to do.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The fact of the matter is that this is all the money that we have to
spend.

[[Page H1594]]

Believe me, I am sympathetic to the arguments that it would be nice if
our committees didn't have to make any cuts. Again, if we don't make
some cuts because of the sequestration, this money has to come from
somewhere else. I guess we're sort of looking for other ideas of
offsets for those who are saying that we should not pass this
resolution.
What kinds of things would they offset?
We've certainly watched the White House close tours to groups because
they said the sequester impacted the Secret Service's ability to
protect the President when the American people came into the White
House. I don't know if they're suggesting we should close the Capitol
Building or what have you. I don't think that kind of suggestion would
go very far.
But, again, where do you offset if you're not going to cut any
spending here?
I will also say this: I come from southeast Michigan, which arguably
was ground zero during the most painful economic transition, certainly
in my lifetime, that happened in our Nation here recently, and we're
trying to get ourselves out of that. We were number one in all of the
categories you didn't want to be number one in. If I'd have told our
local county or our local units of government that they'd have to cut
11 percent, they would say thank you, because they've cut anywhere from
30 to 40 percent. There were just incredible amounts of cuts that
happened. Furloughs have happened with employees. That has been going
on for years, actually. That's my neighborhood.
When we think about the amount of borrowing that we're doing as a
Nation--as everybody knows, we are now to the point of $16 trillion in
national debt with no end in sight, and we've been running deficits
for, certainly, the last 5 years of well over $1 trillion and, in many
cases, $1.5 trillion annually, and we're borrowing 42 cents on every
dollar that we spend--if we do not have the political will to make any
kind of cuts ourselves to where we can't even cut our own committee
budgets here in the House while these kinds of cuts are being absorbed
by other areas, I just think that this resolution will be a very vivid
demonstration of the differences of what we think ``leading by
example'' actually means.
I will tell you as well, as a grandmother, I do not want to look at
my two little grandchildren and say, Hey, do you mind paying the bill,
because I don't have the political will. I just can't do it. Too hard
for me. I don't want to break a sweat here. Would you mind paying?
I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I just cannot get to that place. I
think this resolution is very, very important. I recognize the painful
cuts that are happening. It's not easy. That's why the American people
sent us here--to have the political will and to make the hard
decisions. I would hope that my colleagues would support this
resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the Democratic whip and
the former ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I heard the gentlelady
from Michigan's comments. I have three grandchildren of my own and two
great grandchildren. The gentlelady said we don't want to turn to them
and say, We don't want to pay our bills. You pay them.
That's what we did in '01 and '03. We cut revenues. We cut revenues
deeply. We didn't cut spending--we increased spending--on the theory
that the people who were going to get the benefit were voting and that
the people who were going to get paid and who were going to have to pay
the bill weren't voting. It worked to some degree; but we didn't pay,
as the gentlelady suggested we ought to, our bills. As the gentlelady
probably knows, we had a provision in place which said we ought to pay
as we go. If we buy a war, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a tax cut,
we ought to pay for it. If we buy a prescription drug, we ought to pay
for it and not ask my children or my grandchildren or your children or
your grandchildren to pay for it. I agree with the lady, but that's
what we've done.
Now we are about the process of undermining the people's government
by slashing its funding so it cannot provide the services that the
people want and need and vote for, and now we will slash the ability of
this House to do what the people expect us to do. I'm sorry the former
Secretary of State left the Chamber. He's the Secretary of State. He
says we ought to lead by example. By golly, I'll tell you: the people
in my constituency, they hope we're not the example of how to work.
They hope we're not the example of the dysfunction that they ought to
follow, that we're not the example of ``do it my way or no way,'' which
is what we've been doing.
The people of the United States of America send us here, and they
want us to make sure that we adopt policies that will help them and
their families, that will create jobs and grow our economy. That's what
they want. What the people of the United States also want is to make
sure we can conduct the oversight of their government. That's our
responsibility. The previous gentleman said, Well, the executive ought
to lead, and then we wouldn't need to do oversight. I didn't get that,
frankly, at all. The executive is a separate and equal branch of
government, but we are the first branch of government. We are article
I. We are the people's House. We represent the people, and they expect
us to make sure their government is operating properly. To the extent
that year after year we reduce our ability to conduct the oversight
necessary to ensure that the people's government is operating
consistent with law and on behalf of the people of the United States--
to the extent that we undermine that ability--we undermine free
government, a free people, a free country.

{time} 1530

We undermine the ability of this government to make sure that the
executive is doing the right thing. And to the extent that the
population of this country keeps growing, as it does every year, it
needs us to be on the job. And what we're saying, of course, is: Well,
we have a sequester. Sequester starts with ``S''; it stands for stupid.
It is an irrational policy that we've adopted. And we've adopted it. It
just didn't happen. It didn't come out of the air. It didn't fall from
the trees. We adopted sequester. It's an irrational, ineffective,
inefficient, negative policy that we've not only allowed to go into
place, but in the budget we passed, we adopted it one more time, not by
mistake but by policy. It was a bad policy. I didn't vote for it. It's
irrational.
I tell people around the country, you know, it's like the family has
a budget. You have a food budget and you have a movie budget. Somebody
loses their job and so your income goes down. So what you do is you sit
around the table and say: We'll cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10
percent. What rational human being would do that? Nobody. They'd say
we're not going to go to the movies this month so we can put food on
the table and make sure that our family is well fed.
But that's not what we're doing. The sequester that we're now
pursuing, somewhat mindlessly, in my opinion, with respect to our
ability to do the job that the people expect us to do, is to cut food
by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VARGAS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. My friends, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I
want the American people to know we've cut committee funding for 2
years in a row because we understand that we're asking everybody to
notch in their belt by one or two notches, and we ought to do the same.
And we have. But if you undermine the people's ability to do their job,
you're going to be in trouble.
Woodrow Wilson once wrote: ``Congress in session is Congress on
public exhibition.''
That's what we are here, we're on public exhibition. The TV is on,
people are watching us, and people are seeing us.
But what Woodrow Wilson also said was: ``Whilst Congress in committee
rooms is Congress at work.''

[[Page H1595]]

That's where we really do our work. We vote on it here, but
committees are critically important creatures of oversight and of
action.
I think the gentlelady is a good Member of this House, and she's been
given a tough responsibility. She laments the fact that we have no
money. We have no money because we said we didn't need it; we have no
money because we can operate government without it.
Mr. Speaker, I hear your gavel, and I will close, but I urge my
colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let's make sure that the
Congress of the United States can do the job that the people expect.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this committee funding bill,
which would hurt the ability of Congress to do its work effectively.
This bill would cut the funding for House Committees by an additional
11% in order to meet the irrational demands of sequestration--on top of
huge cuts imposed last Congress.
Committees have lost around a quarter of their funding in the past
few years, and this has meant fewer staff positions and the possibility
of furloughs.
Most, I think, do not realize just how important committees are to
the work we perform on the American people's behalf.
Woodrow Wilson once wrote:

Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition,
whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work.

Eroding the ability of committees to do their work seriously limits
the ability of Congress to engage in the people's work.
The Speaker and majority leader have said many times that this House
ought to follow regular order.
To do so, we must have strong and fully functioning committees.
I urge my colleagues in both parties to oppose this bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minority
whip's comments. I have great regard for him as well. I thought it was
interesting, Mr. Speaker, listening to him talk about the President's
sequester as an irrational kind of a thing. Of course, it was the
President's idea. I don't dispute that it is not the best way to cut
spending. Many may say it's an irrational approach. Again, the
President's sequester, the President's idea.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Just so we're pretty accurate, as the gentlelady knows,
your side offered a bill which was called Cut, Cap, and Balance. The
alternative in Cut, Cap, and Balance was sequester. I didn't vote for
that. I'm not sure how the gentlelady voted on it. It passed this House
overwhelmingly with Republican support and with opposition on our side
before Jack Lew suggested to Harry Reid that that might be one way to
get off the lack of action in making sure that America paid its bills.
The only reason I interrupt the gentlelady is because I think it is
important to understand that your Cut, Cap, and Balance, passed before
that suggestion was made, included sequester as the fallback if we
didn't reach the numbers. If it's the President's, it's the President's
via Cut, Cap, and Balance which your side of the aisle passed and sent
to the Senate as presumably good policy.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding. She was very kind to do that.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the
sequencing of the sequester, the President's sequester, the President's
idea of the sequester, and I appreciate that. I still say with the
President's sequester that what's going to happen with this vote is a
very vivid demonstration, again, of who is actually committed to doing
more with less. My colleague, the gentleman, the minority whip, also
has given us sort of a historical lesson of various things in his
observation of the way things had gone earlier on, and I would point
something out as well since we are talking about committee budget cuts.
In 2007 when the other party, the Democrats, took control of this
House, they immediately increased the amount of spending on committees
by 8.9 percent, almost 9 percent; immediate increase. Then in 2009 as
they kept control of the Congress, again they increased committee
spending, that time by 8.9 percent. Now keep in mind, this was at a
time--which I had mentioned previously, being from southeast Michigan--
everybody else, it seemed like, certainly every State government, every
local unit of government, every school district, many, many businesses,
certainly American families, were making cuts. That was not happening
here with committee spending.
In 2010, this House shifted control. The Republicans took control.
And what did we do with committee spending as a way to show that we
wanted to do more with less, that we understood that we needed to get a
handle on this out-of-control Federal spending, we actually cut
committee budgets by 9.5 percent for the 112th Congress, and as we are
debating now, another 11 percent cut that we're looking at.
This is at the same time that the House, under Republican control,
has also cut what we call our Members' representational allowances, our
MRAs, which has been very painful for all of us as well. We cut 5
percent, then in the 6 percentile. Now just a couple of weeks ago,
effective immediately with the sequester, another in the 8 percentile
cuts for all of us. All of us are doing more with less. And believe me,
I understand there's no sympathy for Members of Congress, but I
certainly point that out.
At the same time if you look at non-defense discretionary for the
executive branch, almost a 17 percent increase during that same time.
So I just think when we look at this resolution, we see how important
it is. Again, I am not minimizing how painful it will be for the
committees, but it's really the new reality, I think, and it's
important for those of us here in the people's House to do the people's
work with the amount of money that we have available, and to do it to
the very best of our ability. And I know certainly Republicans and
Democrats are committed to doing that.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, you and I were in Rules last night when I made the
statement that I'm going to make here today. When I was a child, I
learned that you can be penny-wise and pound foolish.
What winds up happening here is for a protracted period of time, we
have not been able to retain the kind of staff, the hardworking people
that really do the grinding work in committees, as Mr. Hoyer pointed
out, and we leave them without the ability to get a raise. And I don't
know about you all, but what's going to wind up happening with my staff
is some of them are going to get better jobs because they are better
served by going into the private sector.
If we want to retain good people, we have to pay good people. And at
a time when the public is more aware of what we are doing and making
more demands, as rightly they should upon us, we decide to put
ourselves in a position to not be able to serve the public.
In the final analysis, some of what we are doing is trying to save
our Republican colleagues. They get two-thirds of whatever it is that
we're talking about. But we should not be ashamed of what we do here.
We deserve the honesty that we would want the American public to expect
of us as we conduct our work.

{time} 1540

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I'd like to thank the chairwoman from the committee.
She was very gracious during the committee hearing, and I learned quite
a bit from her. I want to thank her for that.
And I, in particular, want to thank the ranking member. The ranking
member gave me the opportunity to speak here. That normally doesn't
happen to freshmen, and I really appreciate that. He has a reputation
of being very gracious and kind, and I appreciate it. It was certainly
demonstrated here today.
I do have to respond, however. There was the issue of immorality that
was brought up before, and as a former Jesuit, I'm very comfortable
with that type of language. And I believe it was said that leaving
bills for other generations, future generations, was the most

[[Page H1596]]

immoral thing we can do. I certainly would challenge that premise. I
think there's a lot more immoral things that we can do. However, when
you do take a look at the issue of immorality and saying that we're
going to leave this huge deficit, this huge debt to future generations,
I think that that is immoral.
However, it's interesting, the argument on the other side is just
simply the argument of cuts and not revenue. So, for example, corporate
jets, there are loopholes for them now. We could close them. It
wouldn't hurt the millionaires and the billionaires to pay taxes on
them. It wouldn't hurt them one bit. And that, of course, would cut--it
would cut the debt, the deficit that we leave to these future
generations, reducing the immorality. We could have the wealthy,
instead of paying 12, 13 percent on average, pay what middle class
people pay. That certainly would cut the debt and deficit
significantly, reducing, once again, the immorality.
But it's interesting, talking about immorality. The Bible certainly
speaks to that. In Amos, the prophet Amos, if you look it up, you'll
see that Amos speaks about the anawim, and the anawim are God's little
ones. The little ones, then, were the orphans and the widows. Because
of the condition that they were in, it was very difficult for them to
survive. And we then, or at that time, the Israelites, were going to be
judged on how they treated the anawim.
That carries forward into the New Testament. If you look in Matthew,
Matthew 25, they say: How are we going to be judged? How are we going
to be judged?
Jesus makes it easy. He says: whatever you do to the least of my
brothers, you did to me. Then he goes through a litany of things. He
says: when I was hungry, you gave me to eat; when I was thirsty, you
gave me to drink; when I was a stranger--interestingly, when I was a
stranger, we're certainly having that conversation with immigrants
today--when I was a stranger, you welcomed me; when I was ill, you
cured me. Interestingly, too, when I was a prisoner, you came and
visited me. It didn't say if you were innocent, by the way. It didn't
say that. It said: when I was a prisoner, you came and you visited me.
That's how we're going to be judged.
And these budgets, these budgets should go towards those values.
That's what's moral, taking care of those that are thirsty and hungry,
those that are strangers. And these committees work hard to make sure
that happens, and they do a very good job. In fact, no one's argued
that they don't; just the opposite. What we have heard from the
committee chairs is: don't cut us because we can do even a better job.
And not only that, you're loading the work on us.
So I would conclude, and again thank the ranking member and certainly
thank the chair for the opportunity. And I would urge my colleagues to
defeat this resolution. I appreciate the opportunity, again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, at this time,
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. I've listened to this debate. It's primarily about the
amount of money we spend on our committees here in the House. Taxes
have just been inserted into it, and I have to respond to the comment
about corporate taxes or tax breaks for corporate jets. It's an easy
target. It's something the Democrats have repeatedly targeted in their
budget resolution, something the President proposed to offset
sequestration. And of course, the wealthy, with their big fancy
corporate jets or corporate executives with their jets are easy
targets.
But there is a lot of collateral damage any time this issue comes up.
We forget about the people who fly those planes, the people who clean
the planes, the people who fuel the planes, the people who run the
facilities where those planes are hangared, the people who manage the
flight operations, the people who manufacture those planes, which is, I
would point out, the number one export industry in the State of
Arkansas.
Much like in 1990 when the budget deal targeted the yacht industry in
New England for a special luxury tax, it didn't raise the revenue that
was projected. It did devastate that industry, leading to catastrophic
layoffs, and resulted in the repeal of that measure within just a
matter of months after it passed.
So while I appreciate the Democrats' desire to raise taxes every few
months, I think that our spending crisis, or our debt crisis, is driven
by spending, and we should be careful about singling out specific
industries that provide good, high-paying jobs to hardworking
Americans.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I certainly want to thank Mr. Vargas for controlling
his time. Mr. Speaker, he did a very good job. We certainly welcome him
to the committee and look forward to working with him, as we also thank
the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his extraordinary work on behalf of
the committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.
Obviously, we have a bit of a disagreement, Mr. Speaker, on the
committee budget cuts here; but I certainly would also applaud the work
of all of our chairmen of our committees, as well as all of the ranking
members, who very diligently went through their budgets trying to make
the appropriate cuts and will continue to do that now, when this
resolution is certainly passed, as we go forward, I think, for all of
us, really, trying to create a fiscally responsible level of funding
here and, again, something that allocates resources in the very best
way that we can, that allows this House to complete its work on behalf
of the American people.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, I believe that we are leading by
example with this resolution today, and we need to show that the
important work of government can certainly be done, and we can do it
well with less. Doing more with less, that's a very well-used term, but
it is certainly appropriate for this, during times of tight budgets.
So I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 115, a resolution to fund the House standing and select Committees
for the 113th Congress. As a member of the House Administration
Committee, I have first-hand knowledge of the work that went into this
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
As you know, with the implementation of the sequester on March 1st,
across-the-board spending cuts took effect. In the wake of this, the
House Administration Committee had a chance to hear from our
colleagues--the Chairman and Ranking Member of each House Committee--
about how they would handle the impact of the sequester.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Committee acted in a deliberative and
fair manner when determining Committee budgets for the 113th Congress.
Each Committee serves an important function, and while all will have to
continue to produce good work with less, I am confident that they will
succeed.
In the 112th Congress, the House recognized that economic
difficulties were forcing the nation to tighten its belt. Rather than
continuing runaway spending, this body chose to demonstrate that we
were serious about getting our fiscal house in order by enacting an
11.4 percent cut in Committee funding. Today's vote gives us an
important chance to show that, while families across the country are
struggling to make ends meet, the House plans to continue leading by
example.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this resolution includes cuts that will
force Committees to make tough decisions. However, when the government
faces across the board cuts, this institution should not be exempt. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 115.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the
previous question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272,
nays 136, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 82]

YEAS--272

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton

[[Page H1597]]

Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)

NAYS--136

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Forbes
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--23

Aderholt
Amodei
Collins (GA)
DeLauro
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Fortenberry
Gohmert
Graves (MO)
Harper
Hinojosa
Langevin
Lipinski
Lynch
Miller, George
Nadler
Pelosi
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (NJ)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

{time} 1630

Mrs. BEATTY and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. ROE of Tennessee, PASTOR of Arizona, QUIGLEY, Ms. SLAUGHTER,
Messrs. COLE and LOEBSACK changed their 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.
Stated for:
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote 82, on consideration of H. Res. 115, a resolution
providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of
Representatives for the 113th Congress, because I was questioning the
Director the Federal Bureau of Investigation in my capacity as chairman
of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and
Science. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I missed a rollcall vote today.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 82.

____________________