[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11692-11697]
[From the U.S. 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.

  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

[[Page 11693]]

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 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,

[[Page 11694]]

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

[[Page 11695]]

Nation. Failing to provide adequate resources to the leg. branch will 
mean 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.

[[Page 11696]]

  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 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.''

[[Page 11697]]

  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.

                          ____________________