[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11730-11756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
consideration of H.R. 2551 pursuant to House Resolution 359, the 
following amendments be permitted to be offered out of the specified 
order:
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Moran;
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Holt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1929


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Woodall in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the 
funding bill for the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the 
Appropriations Committee for 2012.
  Everybody knows that we are in the midst of some very difficult 
economic times. I don't need to tell the Members that we have had 
deficits of over $1 trillion for the last couple of years. I don't need 
to tell people that we've had about $4 trillion added to our national 
debt in the last 2\1/2\ years. We all know that we have $14 trillion of 
national debt, and that equals our entire economy.

                              {time}  1930

  The one thing that everyone would agree on is that we just can't keep 
spending like that. That's just not sustainable. Everyone says that. So 
we bring this bill in the midst of that kind of discussion, and we want 
to try to do our part in getting a handle on the way we spend money 
around this place. We want to try to stop this culture of spending and 
turn it into a culture of savings.
  So when we bring this bill, this Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill, it will spend 6.4 percent less than last year. That's $227 
million. It will spend 14.2 percent less than what was requested, 
that's $474 million.
  Now, it's our best effort to keep the commitment that we're going to 
try to do things more efficiently and more effectively than we have 
before. How do we do that? Well, we listen to the facts. We had eight 
formal hearings. We had numerous informal hearings. We listened, we set 
priorities, we made some tough choices, and we have the bill before us.
  I certainly want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their 
involvement, for their participation, for their hard work, for their 
input. And a special word of thanks to Mike Honda from California, the 
ranking member, who was involved in the process all along the way and 
knows the difficult choices that we had to make.
  I certainly want to thank our staff, both the majority and minority 
staff. A lot of times we go home at night and they stay and keep on 
working, and they helped us get to where we are today to have this 
final product.
  Now, let me just give you some of the highlights of this bill.
  If you look at the legislative branch, about 36 percent of the 
spending goes to the House of Representatives. That's where we are 
tonight. Half of the money that goes to the House goes to what we call 
Members' representational accounts, the so-called MRAs. And so we 
thought that since we've asked every agency in the Federal Government 
to rein in spending, we've asked them all to tighten their belt, to do 
more with less, to be more efficient than they ever have been before, 
we've subjected them to this kind of scrutiny, and we thought it would 
only be fair to apply that same process to us. That's why the MRAs in 
this House are reduced by 6.4 percent. All of the committee staff 
budgets, they are reduced by 6.4. The leadership budgets are reduced by 
6.4 percent.
  Now, those MRAs, that's money that's taxpayers' money. We have it 
available to us to run our offices. We can hire staff. We can lease 
space. We can buy equipment. We can do a lot of things. We have a lot 
of discretion.
  Now, some people say we shouldn't cut the MRAs. Some people say we 
cut them too much, that we can't continue to do our job. Well, it seems 
to me that if we're going to ask every other agency of the Federal 
Government to do more with less, then we've got to look at our own 
selves, and that's what we've done here. We've said that we want to 
lead by example. We want to share in the sacrifice that everyone is 
sharing throughout the Federal Government. And that's why we did what 
we did.
  Some people say, well, we might have to fire somebody. Again, Members 
have the money available to them. They can decide how they want to 
spend it. If they want to have lots of staff, they can have lots of 
staff. If they want to send lots of mail out, they can send lots of 
mail out. The MRAs even allow Members to lease a car. There will be an 
amendment later on to say you can't lease a car if it costs more a 
thousand dollars a month.
  So when you hear people say this is going to make it very difficult 
for us to do our job, I think what it's going to do is make us as 
Members be more responsible, be more efficient, set the right 
priorities and continue to do our job. Because some people say we ought 
to cut even more.
  But I would say that if you look at the facts, we've cut this 
legislative branch funding by 9 percent over the last 2 years. We cut 
the MRAs again. Last year we cut them 5 percent. The Appropriations 
Committee was cut by 9 percent last year. And so I think we've struck a 
balance between doing more with less, being more efficient, and yet 
being able to do the things that we need to do in a very efficient and 
a very safe manner.
  Now, there are other agencies that we oversee, and some are 
extensions of the House, so to speak. The Congressional Budget Office, 
the Government Accountability Office, these are agencies that provide 
service to the Members of this body. And as extensions of the House, we 
felt like they should be subject to the same scrutiny that we were. 
Their budgets are going to be reduced by 6.4 percent as well. That 
means they are going to have to be a little smarter, set priorities, 
work more efficiently.
  Actually, as Members, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to be more 
judicious in the things that we ask from these agencies. Sometimes we 
just willy-nilly say, I want a report here, I want a report there. We 
need to decide

[[Page 11731]]

what we really need and what we don't necessarily need, and I think 
they will be able to continue to do the job that they've been doing all 
along to supply us with the information we need to be effective Members 
of this body.
  We also oversee the Library of Congress, a wonderful historic 
building that you can see from this House of Representatives. Very 
important to us. Their budget has been reduced. They are working with 
us to make sure that they can continue to provide the services that we 
need.
  We oversee the Architect of the Capitol. He's charged with overseeing 
over a million square feet of offices all across this Capitol Hill. His 
budget is being cut, and he's got a list of the projects he needs to 
do. He's set a priority there, and he will do what needs to be done, 
but he'll make sure that he doesn't impair the health and the safety of 
any Members of this House, any staff, or the people that work on the 
Hill.
  We reduced the budget of the Government Printing Office.
  Finally, we oversee the Capitol Police. And a lot has been said about 
our ability to make sure that we're safe in this area. We didn't reduce 
the spending for the Capitol Police. We recognize that security is not 
a luxury; it's something that we need. But we also realize that Members 
can be more diligent, we can be more aware.
  What we learned from this situation in Arizona with our fellow 
Congresswoman is that our service is not without risk, but many of the 
things that we need to do from a security standpoint have to do with 
our own common sense, our own awareness, our own diligence.
  So we provide the Capitol Police with the money that they need to not 
only make sure that we are safe in this House, our staff, and those 
that work in the Capitol complex are safe, but also the millions of 
Americans that come here, to make sure they're safe as well.
  So I think, Mr. Chairman, we have a bill that strikes the right 
balance. We recognize the difficult times we're in. We've taken the 
money we have available. We've set priorities. We made some tough 
choices. And I think this bill represents some fiscally responsible 
savings that will allow us to continue to do our job, to do it in a 
safe and efficient manner. As we have put all of these agencies around 
the Federal Government under this scrutiny to see if they can do things 
more efficiently, we have not exempted ourselves.

[[Page 11732]]





[[Page 11733]]



[[Page 11734]]



[[Page 11735]]



[[Page 11736]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Crenshaw, the 
Appropriations majority staff, and his personal staff for the 
professionalism shown during this process. While it is not the bill I 
would have written, it is the process that I would have followed.
  As for the bill, the legislative branch minus the Senate is being cut 
by 6.4 percent from fiscal year 2011 and 9 percent from fiscal year 
2010. These cuts are being done while we had to fix a $13 million hole 
for the Capitol Police because of their accounting mistake in fiscal 
year 2010.
  I believe these cuts are harmful to our Members' ability to serve 
their constituents and to the House's responsibility to provide 
effective oversight.
  The budget allocation is what one could expect given the majority is 
also cutting women and children's nutrition programs, consumer 
protection, and other important programs in other bills. The only thing 
this bill has succeeded in doing, however, is joining the other flawed 
bills by cutting at the expense of jobs, strong oversight, and 
commonsense efficiencies. Maybe with this bill, the smallest of all 12, 
and the one that funds our Members' own operations, the majority will 
see the real-life impacts of these cuts, one of which is not real 
deficit reduction.
  This bill will cut the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent, including 
a reduction of over 300 employees, 50 of whom will be cut from our much 
relied-upon Congressional Research Service. Members should ask their 
staff how often they use CRS staff for research, particularly in 
responding to questions and concerns from their constituents.

                              {time}  1940

  This bill would cut the Government Printing Office by 16 percent, an 
agency already planning to let go of 330 employees. There is language 
encouraging the privatization of GPO's activities, which could make it 
more expensive for Congress to operate.
  The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is cut by 6.4 percent. 
Every $1 spent at GAO results in $4 in taxpayer savings. This begs the 
question, is it the majority's priority to not save taxpayers money? 
Those who claim to want increased oversight of government programs 
should reject cuts to GAO. They are known as Congress' watchdog, and 
that watchdog should have teeth.
  We have heard that some Members' offices are furloughing staff to 
meet the 5 percent cut to the Members' Representational Allowance, or 
MRA, in 2011. Now this bill will further cut MRAs by 6.4 percent. Cuts 
to the MRA means cuts to Members' day-to-day abilities to effectively 
represent our and their constituents. From the staff assistant 
answering calls from our constituents to the caseworker helping Grandma 
recover her lost Social Security check, all of these services are 
funded through MRA. Each office would lose on the average of $88,000, 
which would mean two to three staffers per office.
  In what world does laying people off recover the economy? The cut-
and-grow mantra does not work in the economy as a whole. It certainly 
will not work in the corridors of Congress. I hope the Members of this 
body understand that agencies we rely on will have to deny or severely 
limit services provided to Members' offices because there are fewer 
people to handle requests. I would say to my colleagues, remember these 
cuts the next time you have requests of GAO, the Architect of the 
Capitol, Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Beyond that, after the tragic shooting of our friend and colleague 
Gabby Giffords in Tucson, we were told to increase security in our 
district offices. But how are we supposed to pay for all of it? 
Certainly not out of our office budgets that are being whacked, not 
from the Capitol Police who are flat-funded, and not from the Sergeant 
at Arms, whose budget is cut 10 percent.
  I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Crenshaw. There are not 
many things that he could have done differently with the allocation he 
had to work under. I hope we rethink trying to balance the budget by 
cutting services to the people who sent us here, our constituents. We 
can and must do better, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  I rise today to commend H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 
appropriations act for the legislative branch.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the sixth appropriations bill that we will have 
passed through the House out of 12 bills that will be considered. Three 
more of the 12 bills are waiting, queued up to come before the House. 
But this is the sixth. This will make us halfway through the 
appropriations bills for 2012.
  I want to commend Chairman Crenshaw and Mr. Honda for their hard work 
and the blood-curdling decisions they've had to make, because this bill 
deals with our colleagues and us and the operation of this body that we 
all love. This bill will help stop government overspending starting in 
our own backyards. If we're trying to get back on a more sustainable 
course, we've got to cut spending wherever we can, and we've got to 
make do with less. Our constituents asked us to get our own fiscal 
house in order, and we're leading by example with this legislation.
  This legislation prioritizes the safety of the thousands of people 
who work in and visit the Capitol Complex every day, providing 
essential funding for the Capitol Police, services for our visitors, 
and necessary maintenance. But we are keeping to our commitment to 
reduce spending, and so we've cut back in other areas. We've trimmed 
the House leadership, Member, and committee budgets by over 6 percent. 
This legislation provides smaller budgets for our own offices and 
continues our goal of reducing spending across the entire Federal 
Government.
  To demonstrate my commitment to savings and to prove the feasibility 
of reduced budgets, earlier this year, we directed that my very own 
committee, the Appropriations Committee, cut its budget not by the 5 
percent that all other committees cut. We said, We'll see your 5 
percent and ask for 4 more; and we cut our budget by 9 percent. And 
this bill continues that reduction, trimming another 6.4 percent. So 
since January of this year, the Appropriations Committee, when this 
bill is finished, will have cut its own budget by some 15.4 percent. 
Just as American families are forced to live within their means, their 
Representatives in Washington should do the same.
  I understand that many of my colleagues are concerned about what 
these cuts might mean for their own offices. I know making these hard 
decisions will not be easy for them, just as they were not easy for us 
to make in the first place. But these cuts are necessary. We can't ask 
everyone else to make cuts to their budgets and not do the same to 
ourselves. We all have to share in the sacrifice during this financial 
crisis, and I'm proud that we're doing our part to help our Nation dig 
itself out of dangerous job-killing debt so that we can get our economy 
back on track.
  Again, I want to commend Chairman Crenshaw and Ranking Member Honda 
and their staffs on a strong bill that makes these responsible 
reductions, and I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
beautiful State of Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California, 
for yielding to me, and I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw, 
Chairman Rogers, and the staff on both sides for what they have been 
able to do to accommodate some of the priorities of Democratic Members 
as they have assembled the bill.

[[Page 11737]]

  This bill would fund the legislative branch, minus the Senate, at 
$3.3 billion. This represents a 6.4 percent reduction from fiscal year 
2011 and a 9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010.
  I appreciate the overview that Congressman Honda has provided. And at 
this point, I would simply like to join him in expressing serious 
concern on behalf of our colleagues regarding security for our district 
offices and for official events involving Members as well as the 
general public. After the tragic shooting in Tucson, the Congress was 
left to reevaluate security in Members' districts. While it is of 
utmost importance to ensure that citizens continue to have access to 
their Representatives in Congress, the Tucson event is a reminder that 
we must be vigilant in providing security to Members, to our staffs, 
and to our constituents who attend our events.
  The effort by the House to improve district security after the 
shooting put much of the burden on the Members' offices, including the 
payment for that security. As Members' office budgets are being cut for 
the second time in a year, there has to be reconsideration of that 
policy, perhaps with an eye towards a more centralized approach to 
security.
  While we have not seen specific estimates of the costs involved here, 
it would clearly represent a substantial expense, especially if the 
budget of the Secret Service is used as a guide. The Capitol Police 
appropriations recommended in this bill is $340 million, equal to the 
fiscal year 2011 level. The Capitol Police protect the entire Capitol 
Complex, with primary security responsibilities for 541 Members of 
Congress, Resident Commissioners, and Delegates. By comparison, the 
House-passed Secret Service appropriation bill included over $1 billion 
for the protection of 50 to 70 individuals, including the President.

                              {time}  1950

  If the Capitol Police are going to be required to assess more threats 
against Members and take a more active role in district security, the 
Capitol Police budget should reflect these increased demands. 
Conversely, if Members' individual office budgets are going to continue 
to assume these additional security costs, their budget should somehow 
reflect this responsibility.
  Again, I thank the ranking member for his work on the bill and the 
chairman and Mr. Rogers and our staff. We have a great staff, and they 
do great work for this institution.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security 
appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for 
their hard work on this bill, although, with an inadequate allocation, 
there are decisions that have been made that I believe will adversely 
affect our work, and that I hope can be revisited down the line.
  That's not what I want to talk at this moment, though. I want to talk 
about an unusual feature of the Legislative Branch bill that I hope 
also can be revisited down the line. I want to call the attention of my 
colleagues to the elimination of a program that has served this body 
and our Nation's interests well, the Open World Leadership Center, a 
unique enterprise, sponsored by the legislative branch of our 
government, something that I think should make us very proud of this 
institution and its international outreach. The bill before us today 
provides only shut down expenses for this program.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment to restore 
the program's funding because of the extremely low subcommittee 
allocation and the absence of acceptable offsets. There simply isn't 
money lying around to apply to this purpose. But I cannot let this 
body's commitment to the Open World Program end without voicing my 
disappointment and my hope that this matter will be reconsidered and 
can be reconsidered in the context of the Senate bill.
  The Open World Leadership Program is a unique program administered by 
the Library of Congress that, over the years, has earned bipartisan and 
bicameral support. Since 1999, the program has brought emerging leaders 
from former Soviet States to all 50 States of our country, providing 
them a firsthand look at the U.S. democratic process, enabling them to 
exchange ideas with their American counterparts, and encouraging them 
to relate what they learn to their home environments.
  The participants in Open World are not the people that typically 
participate in international exchange programs. They're not just the 
political or business leaders in the capital who venture to other 
nations frequently. No, they're teachers, they're judges, they're 
health workers, they're young activists. They're all sorts of people 
who live often in rural areas and smaller cities.
  The program penetrates deeply. In my experience, uniquely so. It 
penetrates quite deeply, rather than just being another run-of-the-mill 
exchange program. I know about this, and many other Members in this 
body do as well. I've participated personally with these leaders as 
they've come to my district.
  This is a well-designed program. It's a program that has made and can 
make a difference. It doesn't just merely scratch the surface. It 
involves Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, 
Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Serbia. These 
countries remain strategically linked to U.S. interests because of 
their history and also because of their location in Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia.
  The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HONDA. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The Open World Program is an effective 
diplomatic tool, and one of the legislative branch's few direct 
democracy promotion programs.
  My colleagues, Open World is not about us. It's not about us. It's 
not about our institution. It's an instrument of outreach, a unique 
one. We should be proud of this, a unique instrument of outreach to a 
critical part of the world. And its loss would be deeply felt.
  Now, in previous Congresses there has been some question of whether 
the Open World Program should be placed where it is administratively, 
or in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I've looked at this. 
I've concluded that the program's very placement in the legislative 
branch is, in fact, an asset, making clear the program is not tied to a 
specific administration with its foreign policy goals and priorities 
and politics. This, in fact, we're told has sometimes reduced obstacles 
to participation and has made the program more accessible.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress' sponsorship of Open World has made me proud 
of this institution. We've assumed responsibility, very directly, for 
projecting our democratic principles and values to countries with 
histories of oppressive rule. We need to reflect further. We need to 
think long and hard on what it would mean to drop this program. What 
does that say about us? What kind of opportunities would we forego? If 
we do think long and hard, I have some confidence that we would 
reconsider what the subcommittee has recommended, and I very much hope 
we will have that opportunity.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I've seen some bad Legislative 
branch bills reported from Appropriations in my years here, but this is 
by far the worst. In my judgment, the committee has failed to attend to 
the needs of this branch of government and done so for no apparent 
reason other than its adherence to an ideology exalting short-term 
political gain over long-term, careful stewardship of this first branch 
of government. There is no word to describe this bill other than 
``reckless'' and I will not support it in its present form. Funding 
Capitol Hill's agencies at the levels contemplated in this bill will 
inflict real damage.
  For example, this bill cuts the House itself by 7.9%, not the 
advertised 6.5%, when one

[[Page 11738]]

factors in the cuts to the Architect's House Office Buildings account. 
Make no mistake: we Members will feel that cut. We will have fewer 
aides to help us answer our mail and help us with our committee work, 
so by definition there will be less of that work performed. Our 
standing committees are where oversight takes place, so federal 
agencies will have an easier time avoiding congressional scrutiny. 
Constituents who visit our congressional office buildings will find 
them in even more dilapidated shape than they already are because we 
are dramatically underfunding maintenance, something our property-
owning constituents know costs only more money in the long run.
  Other agencies covered in this bill received similarly short-sighted 
treatment. The Compliance Office, designed to ensure that Congress 
lives under the same employment and antidiscrimination laws as private 
employers, will suffer a 6.4% cut. A cynic might conclude such a cut is 
designed to cripple a tiny agency inadequately staffed in the first 
place. The Library of Congress, our country's premier cultural 
institution, gets cut 8.5%, threatening a return to the days where 
books sit on the floor for want of staff to shelve them, copyright 
applications take months to process instead of days, and services 
decline to libraries nationwide as well as research support to Congress 
itself.
  The bill will cut the Government Printing Office's account for 
congressional printing by a stunning 16.6%. This appropriation supports 
the printing and posting online of all our bills, resolutions, reports 
and the Congressional Record. This ill-conceived cut threatens timely 
and efficient operation of both houses of Congress, especially if 
paired with an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana to reduce it by 
$3.4 million more. Many at the GPO are already worried about potential 
lay-offs as a result. The Superintendent of Documents account, which 
enhances public transparency by distributing federal documents to 
depository libraries nationwide, faces a 12.1% cut in the bill and more 
if our Indiana colleague's amendment prevails. The Sunlight Foundation, 
a self-styled transparency advocate, believes GPO's been ``drastically 
cut'' even without further reductions.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accountability 
Office, which both help the Congress to assess budgetary 
accountability, receive 6.4% cuts, signaling the value the committee 
places on their very important work. To its credit, the bill holds the 
Architect of the Capitol's cuts for everything but the congressional 
office buildings to 1.5% below last year. The Architect operates many 
of our iconic facilities including the Capitol, the Supreme Court and 
the Library of Congress. If we were serious about preserving these 
hallmarks of American democracy and in creating jobs to strengthen our 
struggling economy, we would spend more in this area, not less.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We can do better.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendments that would reduce funding appropriated in H.R. 2551, the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012 for the U.S. Botanic 
Garden.
  As you may know, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James 
Madison initially had the idea of starting a national botanic garden 
and helped to establish one on the National Mall in 1820. It is a 
keystone on our mall and belongs to the American people. The mission of 
the U.S. Botanic Garden is to demonstrate the aesthetic, cultural, 
economic, therapeutic and ecological importance of plants to the well-
being of humankind. It is a national and global center for learning 
about how to sustain life on our planet, especially as climate changes 
and new challenges confront our society's plant life.
  According to the Architect of the Capitol, approximately 1 million 
people visit the U.S. Botanic Garden each year. About 12,000 different 
plant accessions comprising more than 60,000 plants are displayed for 
exhibition, study, conservation and exchange with other institutions. 
The Botanic Garden is America's encyclopedia for sustaining production 
and life itself.
  In addition to displaying some of the world's most rare and 
endangered plants, the U.S. Botanic Garden provides numerous 
educational opportunities through its partnerships, workshops, 
lectures, tours and demonstrations. Some specific education programs 
include the opportunity to earn a Certification in Botanical Art and 
Illustration, the Junior Botanist Program and several hands-on 
activities exploring plant materials. The Gardner instructs the next 
generation with partnerships across our nation.
  Mr. Chair, we are still in the midst of the worst economic crisis 
since the Great Depression, and a series of odd weather events. The 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics 
Service reports that greenhouse, nursery and floriculture operations 
account for 2.5 percent of all U.S. farms but employ nearly 5 percept 
of hired farm workers. This sector has a sales value of $16.6 Billion. 
It is a one-of-a-kind endowment America depends on.
  From my perspective, it is vitally important that we continue to 
support institutions such as the U.S. Botanic Garden not only because 
of its ability to preserve rare and vital plants essential to life but 
also for its potential to inspire the entrepreneurial spirit. We know 
its visitors will one day lead to increased economic output and job 
creation in the agricultural sector of our economy so dependent on 
innovation and advanced technology.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that would 
reduce funding to the U.S. Botanic Garden.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. Not because I object to cuts 
affecting Members of Congress or their staff. I do not. As I have 
repeatedly said, I believe a responsible solution to our national debt 
will require shared sacrifice from every American--and that includes 
Members of Congress, their staff and other employees of this House.
  I object to this legislation because of the wrongheaded choices it 
makes elsewhere in the legislative branch of our government. For 
example, H.R. 2551 cuts funding for the Government Accountability 
Office by 6.4%--despite the fact that every dollar spent by the GAO on 
its oversight activities returns $4 in savings to the taxpayers. 
Additionally, as we wrestle with difficult issues in an increasingly 
complex world, I think Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
would agree that policymakers need access to more objective and 
independent expert analysis, not less. Yet this bill slashes funding 
for the Library of Congress and its widely respected nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service by 8.5%--and it cuts funding for the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that serves as the definitive 
scorekeeper for every measure Congress considers by 6.4%.
  Mr. Chair, there are responsible and effective ways to reduce federal 
spending, and there are irresponsible and ineffective ways to reduce 
Federal spending. Unfortunately, this bill has too much of the latter 
and not enough of the former.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, our Nation faces a significant budget deficit 
and a growing national debt, and we must look for simple, common sense 
solutions to cut spending as Congress and President Obama work toward a 
comprehensive, balanced deficit reduction package that will put our 
Nation on a path to fiscal stability. Members of Congress must lead by 
example.
  As a State Senator in Michigan, I ran my office so efficiently that I 
was able to return a full year's operating budget to Michigan 
taxpayers. When I came to Congress at the beginning of 2009, I made it 
a priority to run my office efficiently, come in under budget, and 
return the difference to taxpayers. Last session, my office came in 
$320,000 under budget, and I am continuing my efforts to save taxpayer 
dollars at every opportunity.
  I rise today to express my support for Section 101 of the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012. This provision ensures 
that all unused fiscal year 2012 funds from each congressional office 
account, known as a Member's Representational Allowance (or MRA), be 
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction.
  Last session, I sponsored legislation that would require all future 
unspent MRA funds be put toward deficit reduction, and give this 
requirement the force of law. This bill passed the House with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take 
action.
  While it is encouraging that the legislation we consider today 
contains a similar provision, this will only apply to unused funds for 
next year. This is why I introduced H.R. 262, the bipartisan Mandatory 
Returning of Allowances Act with my colleague, Representative Steve 
Scalise. This bill will ensure that all future unused MRA funds, not 
just fiscal year 2012 funds, are automatically and permanently used for 
deficit reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mandatory Returning of Allowances 
Act, and hope that House leadership will consider bringing this 
legislation to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. HONDA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.

[[Page 11739]]

  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2551

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $1,226,680,000, as follows:

                        house leadership offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $23,275,773, including: Office of the Speaker, $6,942,770, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $2,277,595, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $7,432,812, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $1,971,050, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,524,951, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Republican 
     Conference, $1,572,788; Democratic Caucus, $1,553,807. In 
     addition to the amounts made available above, for salaries 
     and expenses under this heading, to be available during the 
     period beginning September 30, 2012, and ending December 31, 
     2013; $5,818,948, including: Office of the Speaker, 
     $1,735,694, including $6,250 for official expenses of the 
     Speaker; Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $569,399, 
     including $2,500 for official expenses of the Majority 
     Leader; Office of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,858,205, 
     including $2,500 for official expenses of the Minority 
     Leader; Office of the Majority Whip, including the Chief 
     Deputy Majority Whip, $492,763, including $1,250 for official 
     expenses of the Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, 
     including the Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $381,238, including 
     $1,250 for offical expenses of the Minority Whip; Republican 
     Conference, $393,197; Democratic Caucus, $388,452.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $573,939,282.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $125,964,870: 
     Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such 
     salaries and expenses until December 31, 2012.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $26,665,785, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed: Provided, That such amount shall remain 
     available for such salaries and expenses until December 31, 
     2012.

                    Salaries, Officers and Employees

       For salaries and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $177,628,400, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than 
     $23,000, of which not more than $20,000 is for the Family 
     Room, for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $26,114,400, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Sergeant at Arms, including the position of Superintendent of 
     Garages and the Office of Emergency Management, and including 
     not more than $3,000 for official representation and 
     reception expenses, $12,585,000 of which $4,445,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; for salaries and expenses of 
     the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer including not 
     more than $3,000 for official representation and reception 
     expenses, $116,782,000, of which $3,937,000 shall remain 
     available until expended; for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of the Inspector General, $5,045,000; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of General Counsel, $1,415,000; for 
     the Office of the Chaplain, $179,000; for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Parliamentarian, including the 
     Parliamentarian, $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, 
     and not more than $1,000 for official representation and 
     reception expenses, $2,060,000; for salaries and expenses of 
     the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House, 
     $3,258,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Legislative Counsel of the House, $8,814,000; for salaries 
     and expenses of the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, 
     $859,000; for other authorized employees, $347,000; and for 
     salaries and expenses of the Historian, $170,000.

                        Allowances and Expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $293,386,942, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $3,696,118; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $201,000; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $264,848,219; Business 
     Continuity and Disaster Recovery, $17,112,072, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall remain available until expended; transition 
     activities for new members and staff, $2,721,533; Wounded 
     Warrior Program $2,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended; Office of Congressional Ethics, $1,548,000; and 
     miscellaneous items including purchase, exchange, 
     maintenance, repair and operation of House motor vehicles, 
     interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to heirs of 
     deceased employees of the House, $760,000.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members' 
     Representational Allowances To Be Used for Deficit Reduction 
     or To Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 2012. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for fiscal year 2012 shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or, 
     if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments 
     have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member 
     of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, 
     or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

                      Republican Policy Committee

       Sec. 102. (a) Section 109(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 74a-13(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``the chair of the Republican Conference'' and 
     inserting the following: ``the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives (or, if the Speaker is not a member of the 
     Republican Party, the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives)''.
       (b) Section 109(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 74a-13(b)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and which shall be obligated and expended as 
     directed by the Speaker (or, if the Speaker is not a member 
     of the Republican party, the Minority Leader).''.
       (c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal year 2012 and each succeeding fiscal year.

   Authority of Speaker and Minority Leader to Allocate Funds Amoung 
                    Certain House Leadership Offices

       Sec. 103. (a) Authority of Speaker.--
       (1) Authority described.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (including any provision of law that sets 
     forth an allowance for official expenses), the amount 
     appropriated or otherwise made available during a Congress 
     for the salaries and expenses of any office or authority 
     described in paragraph (2) shall be the amount allocated for 
     such office or authority by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives from the aggregate amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for all such offices and 
     authorities.
       (2) Offices and authorities described.--The offices and 
     authorities described in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) The Office of the Speaker.
       (B) The Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor Activities.
       (C) The Republican Steering Committee (if the Speaker is a 
     member of the Republican party) or the Democratic Steering 
     and Policy Committee (if the Speaker is a member of the 
     Democratic party).
       (D) The Republican Policy Committee (if the Speaker is a 
     member of the Republican party).
       (E) Training and program development--majority (as 
     described under the heading ``House leadership offices'' in 
     the most recent bill making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch that was enacted prior to the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).
       (F) Cloakroom personnel--majority (as so described).
       (b) Authority of Minority Leader.--
       (1) Authority described.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (including any provision of law that sets 
     forth an allowance for official expenses), the amount 
     appropriated or otherwise made available during a Congress 
     for the salaries and expenses of any office or authority 
     described in paragraph (2) shall be the amount allocated for 
     such office or authority by the Minority Leader of the House 
     of Representatives from the aggregate amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for all such offices and 
     authorities.
       (2) Offices and authorities described.--The offices and 
     authorities described in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) The Office of the Minority Leader.

[[Page 11740]]

       (B) The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (if the 
     Minority Leader is a member of the Democratic party) or the 
     Republican Steering Committee (if the Minority Leader is a 
     member of the Republican party).
       (C) The Republican Policy Committee (if the Minority Leader 
     is a member of the Republican party).
       (D) Training and program development--minority (as 
     described under the heading ``House leadership offices'' in 
     the most recent bill making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch that was enacted prior to the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).
       (E) Cloakroom personnel--minority (as so described).
       (F) Nine minority employees (as so described).
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to any months occurring during the One Hundred Twelfth 
     Congress that begin after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and to any succeeding Congress.

 Republican Conference and the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee

       Sec. 104. (a) Section 103(b) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (2 U.S.C. 74a-8(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Subject to the allocation described in subsection (c), 
     funds'' and inserting ``Funds'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``direct;'' and inserting 
     the following: ``direct (or, if the Speaker is not a member 
     of the Republican Party, under such terms and conditions as 
     the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives may 
     direct);''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``direct.'' and inserting 
     the following: ``direct (or, if the Speaker is a member of 
     the Democratic Party, under such terms and conditions as the 
     Speaker may direct).''.
       (b) Section 103 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 74a-8(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1999.

  Transfer of House Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations 
                     Functions to Sergeant at Arms

       Sec. 105.  Effective February 1, 2010--
       (1) section 905 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (2 
     U.S.C. 130i) is repealed; and
       (2) the functions and responsibilities of the Office of 
     Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Operations under section 
     905 of such Act are transferred and assigned to the Sergeant 
     at Arms of the House of Representatives.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $4,203,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $10,424,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including: (1) an allowance of $2,175 per month 
     to the Attending Physician; (2) an allowance of $1,300 per 
     month to the Senior Medical Officer; (3) an allowance of $725 
     per month each to three medical officers while on duty in the 
     Office of the Attending Physician; (4) an allowance of $725 
     per month to 2 assistants and $580 per month each not to 
     exceed 11 assistants on the basis heretofore provided for 
     such assistants; and (5) $2,427,000 for reimbursement to the 
     Department of the Navy for expenses incurred for staff and 
     equipment assigned to the Office of the Attending Physician, 
     which shall be advanced and credited to the applicable 
     appropriation or appropriations from which such salaries, 
     allowances, and other expenses are payable and shall be 
     available for all the purposes thereof, $3,400,000, to be 
     disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives.

             Office of Congressional Accessibility Services

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Congressional 
     Accessibility Services, $1,363,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate.

                             CAPITOL POLICE

                                Salaries

       For salaries of employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay, and Government contributions 
     for health, retirement, social security, professional 
     liability insurance, and other applicable employee benefits, 
     $277,132,624, to be disbursed by the Chief of the Capitol 
     Police or his designee.

                            General Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Capitol Police, including 
     motor vehicles, communications and other equipment, security 
     equipment and installation, uniforms, weapons, supplies, 
     materials, training, medical services, forensic services, 
     stenographic services, personal and professional services, 
     the employee assistance program, the awards program, postage, 
     communication services, travel advances, relocation of 
     instructor and liaison personnel for the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, and not more than $5,000 to be 
     expended on the certification of the Chief of the Capitol 
     Police in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $63,003,740, of which $2,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2014 to be disbursed by 
     the Chief of the Capitol Police or his designee: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of 
     basic training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 2012 shall be 
     paid by the Secretary of Homeland Security from funds 
     available to the Department of Homeland Security.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 1001.  Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for 
     the Capitol Police may be transferred between the headings 
     ``Salaries'' and ``General Expenses'' upon the approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.

 Waiver by Chief of Capitol Police of Claims Arising Out of Erroneous 
                   Payments to Officers and Employees

       Sec. 1002. (a) Waiver of Claim.--Subject to the approval of 
     the Capitol Police Board, the Chief of the United States 
     Capitol Police may waive in whole or in part a claim of the 
     United States against a person arising out of an erroneous 
     payment of any pay or allowances, other than travel and 
     transportation expenses and allowances, to an officer, 
     member, or employee of the United States Capitol Police, if 
     the collection of the claim would be against equity and good 
     conscience and not in the best interests of the United 
     States.
       (b) Investigation of Application; Report.--The Chief shall 
     investigate each application for the waiver of a claim under 
     subsection (a) and shall submit a written report of the 
     investigation to the Capitol Police Board, except that if the 
     aggregate amount of the claim involved exceeds $1,500, the 
     Comptroller General may also investigate the application and 
     submit a written report of the investigation to the Capitol 
     Police Board.
       (c) Prohibition of Waiver Under Certain Circumstances.--The 
     Chief may not exercise the authority to waive a claim under 
     subsection (a) if--
       (1) in the Chief's opinion, there exists in connection with 
     the claim an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, 
     or lack of good faith on the part of the officer, member, or 
     employee involved or of any other person having an interest 
     in obtaining a waiver of the claim; or
       (2) the Chief receives the application for the waiver after 
     the expiration of the 3-year period that begins on the date 
     on which the erroneous payment of pay or allowances was 
     discovered.
       (d) Credit for Waiver.--In the audit and settlement of 
     accounts of any accountable officer or official, full credit 
     shall be given for any amounts with respect to which 
     collection by the United States is waived under subsection 
     (a).
       (e) Effect of Waiver.--An erroneous payment, the collection 
     of which is waived under subsection (a), is deemed a valid 
     payment for all purposes.
       (f) Construction With Other Laws.--This section does not 
     affect any authority under any other law to litigate, settle, 
     compromise, or waive any claim of the United States.
       (g) Rules and Regulations.--The Chief shall promulgate 
     rules and regulations to carry out this section.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to payments of pay and allowances made at any time after the 
     Chief became the disbursing officer for the United States 
     Capitol Police pursuant to section 1018(a) of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 1907(a)).

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $3,817,000, of which $884,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, 
     That not more than $500 may be expended on the certification 
     of the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary for operation of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, including not more than $6,000 
     to be expended on the certification of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses, $43,787,000.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                         General Administration

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, and other 
     personal services, at rates of

[[Page 11741]]

     pay provided by law; for surveys and studies in connection 
     with activities under the care of the Architect of the 
     Capitol; for all necessary expenses for the general and 
     administrative support of the operations under the Architect 
     of the Capitol including the Botanic Garden; electrical 
     substations of the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Architect of the Capitol; including furnishings and office 
     equipment; including not more than $5,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, to be expended as the 
     Architect of the Capitol may approve; for purchase or 
     exchange, maintenance, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle, $104,790,000, of which $3,199,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2016.

                            Capitol Building

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol, $35,354,000, of which $10,263,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

                            Capitol Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $9,852,000.

                         House Office Buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $89,154,000, of 
     which $40,631,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2016.
       In addition, for a payment to the House Historic Buildings 
     Revitalization Trust Fund, $30,000,000, shall remain 
     available until expended.

                          Capitol Power Plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the 
     Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal 
     Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, 
     expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon 
     request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $127,159,000, of which $33,377,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, 
     That not more than $9,000,000 of the funds credited or to be 
     reimbursed to this appropriation as herein provided shall be 
     available for obligation during fiscal year 2012.

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $38,486,000, of which $12,726,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

             Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds and Security

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of buildings, grounds and security enhancements of 
     the United States Capitol Police, wherever located, the 
     Alternate Computer Facility, and AOC security operations, 
     $21,500,000, of which $3,473,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2016.

                             Botanic Garden

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $12,000,000: Provided, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, the Architect may obligate and 
     expend such sums as may be necessary for the maintenance, 
     care and operation of the National Garden established under 
     section 307E of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
     1989 (2 U.S.C. 2146), upon vouchers approved by the Architect 
     or a duly authorized designee.

                         Capitol Visitor Center

       For all necessary expenses for the operation of the Capitol 
     Visitor Center, $21,276,000.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Library's catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; activities under the 
     Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $412,446,000, of which not more than $6,000,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 2012, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than 
     $350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 
     2012 and shall remain available until expended for the 
     development and maintenance of an international legal 
     information database and activities related thereto: 
     Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or 
     expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of 
     June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That the total amount available for obligation shall 
     be reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     $6,350,000: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not more than $12,000 may be expended, on the 
     certification of the Librarian of Congress, in connection 
     with official representation and reception expenses for the 
     Overseas Field Offices: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $4,800,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the digital collections and educational 
     curricula program.

                            Copyright Office

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, 
     $50,974,000, of which not more than $28,029,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2012 under 
     section 708(d) of title 17, United States Code: Provided, 
     That not more than $3,000,000 shall be derived from prior 
     year available unobligated balances: Provided further, That 
     the Copyright Office may not obligate or expend any funds 
     derived from collections under such section, in excess of the 
     amount authorized for obligation or expenditure in 
     appropriations Acts: Provided further, That not more than 
     $5,484,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal 
     year 2012 under sections 111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 803(e), 1005, 
     and 1316 of such title: Provided further, That the total 
     amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections and prior year available 
     unobligated balances are less than $36,513,000: Provided 
     further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $4,250 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute and for copyright delegations, visitors, 
     and seminars: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     provision of chapter 8 of title 17, United States Code, any 
     amounts made available under this heading which are 
     attributable to royalty fees and payments received by the 
     Copyright Office pursuant to sections 111, 119, and chapter 
     10 of such title may be used for the costs incurred in the 
     administration of the Copyright Royalty Judges program, with 
     the exception of the costs of salaries and benefits for the 
     Copyright Royalty Judges and staff under section 802(e).

                     Congressional Research Service

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For all necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $104,091,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $50,674,000: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $650,000 shall be available to contract to provide newspapers 
     to blind and physically handicapped residents at no cost to 
     the individual.

                       Administrative Provisions

               Reimbursable and Revolving Fund Activities

       Sec. 1101. (a) In General.--For fiscal year 2012, the 
     obligational authority of the Library of Congress for the 
     activities described in subsection (b) may not exceed 
     $169,725,000.
       (b) Activities.--The activities referred to in subsection 
     (a) are reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are 
     funded from sources other than appropriations to the Library 
     in appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--During fiscal year 2012, the 
     Librarian of Congress may temporarily transfer funds 
     appropriated in this Act, under the heading ``Library of 
     Congress'', under the subheading ``Salaries and

[[Page 11742]]

     Expenses'', to the revolving fund for the FEDLINK Program and 
     the Federal Research Program established under section 103 of 
     the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-481; 2 U.S.C. 182c): Provided, That the 
     total amount of such transfers may not exceed $1,900,000: 
     Provided further, That the appropriate revolving fund account 
     shall reimburse the Library for any amounts transferred to it 
     before the period of availability of the Library 
     appropriation expires.

                           Transfer Authority

       Sec. 1102. (a) In General.--Amounts appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2012 for the Library of Congress may be transferred 
     during fiscal year 2012 between any of the headings under the 
     heading ``Library of Congress'' upon the approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       (b) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of the total 
     amount of funds appropriated to the account under any heading 
     under the heading ``Library of Congress'' for fiscal year 
     2012 may be transferred from that account by all transfers 
     made under subsection (a).

           Funds Available for Workers Compensation Payments

       Sec. 1103. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, available balances of expired Library of 
     Congress appropriations shall be available for the purposes 
     of making payments for employees of the Library of Congress 
     under section 8147 of title 5, United States Code without 
     regard to the fiscal year for which the obligation to make 
     such payments is incurred.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to appropriations for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     printing and binding of Government publications authorized by 
     law to be distributed to Members of Congress; and printing, 
     binding, and distribution of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed without charge to the 
     recipient, $78,000,000: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall not be available for paper copies of the permanent 
     edition of the Congressional Record for individual 
     Representatives, Resident Commissioners or Delegates 
     authorized under section 906 of title 44, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred under the 
     appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal 
     years: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 2-year 
     limitation under section 718 of title 44, United States Code, 
     none of the funds appropriated or made available under this 
     Act or any other Act for printing and binding and related 
     services provided to Congress under chapter 7 of title 44, 
     United States Code, may be expended to print a document, 
     report, or publication after the 27-month period beginning on 
     the date that such document, report, or publication is 
     authorized by Congress to be printed, unless Congress 
     reauthorizes such printing in accordance with section 718 of 
     title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated or unexpended balances in this account or 
     accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may 
     be transferred to the Government Printing Office revolving 
     fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading, subject 
     to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and Senate: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding sections 901, 902, and 906 of title 44, 
     United States Code, this appropriation may be used to prepare 
     indexes to the Congressional Record on only a monthly and 
     session basis.

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $35,000,000: Provided, That amounts of not 
     more than $2,000,000 from current year appropriations are 
     authorized for producing and disseminating Congressional 
     serial sets and other related publications for fiscal years 
     2010 and 2011 to depository and other designated libraries: 
     Provided further, That any unobligated or unexpended balances 
     in this account or accounts for similar purposes for 
     preceding fiscal years may be transferred to the Government 
     Printing Office revolving fund for carrying out the purposes 
     of this heading, subject to the approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       The Government Printing Office is hereby authorized to make 
     such expenditures, within the limits of funds available and 
     in accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 9104 of title 31, United States Code, as 
     may be necessary in carrying out the programs and purposes 
     set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for the 
     Government Printing Office revolving fund: Provided, That not 
     more than $7,500 may be expended on the certification of the 
     Public Printer in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses: Provided further, That the revolving fund 
     shall be available for the hire or purchase of not more than 
     12 passenger motor vehicles: Provided further, That 
     expenditures in connection with travel expenses of the 
     advisory councils to the Public Printer shall be deemed 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That the revolving fund shall 
     be available for temporary or intermittent services under 
     section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates 
     for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title: Provided further, 
     That activities financed through the revolving fund may 
     provide information in any format.

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Government Accountability 
     Office, including not more than $12,500 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; benefits 
     comparable to those payable under sections 901(5), (6), and 
     (8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 
     (6), and (8)); and under regulations prescribed by the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, rental of living 
     quarters in foreign countries, $511,296,000: Provided, That, 
     in addition, $18,304,000 of payments received under sections 
     782, 3521, and 9105 of title 31, United States Code, shall be 
     available without fiscal year limitation: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative 
     expenses of any other department or agency which is a member 
     of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of either Forum's costs as determined by 
     the respective Forum, including necessary travel expenses of 
     non-Federal participants: Provided further, That payments 
     hereunder to the Forum may be credited as reimbursements to 
     any appropriation from which costs involved are initially 
     financed.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 1201. (a) Section 210 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 60q) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d); and
       (2) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``United States 
     Code'' and inserting ``United States Code, but excluding the 
     Government Accountability Office''.
       (b) Section 3521(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 105'' and inserting ``section 
     105 (other than the Government Accountability Office)''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply with 
     respect to voluntary separation incentive payments made 
     during fiscal year 2012 or any succeeding fiscal year.

                OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER TRUST FUND

       For a payment to the Open World Leadership Center Trust 
     Fund for financing activities of the Open World Leadership 
     Center under section 313 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 1151), $1,000,000.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                maintenance and care of private vehicles

       Sec. 201.  No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Administration and for the Senate issued by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration.

                         fiscal year limitation

       Sec. 202.  No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2012 
     unless expressly so provided in this Act.

                 rates of compensation and designation

       Sec. 203.  Whenever in this Act any office or position not 
     specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 
     (46 Stat. 32 et seq.) is appropriated for or the rate of 
     compensation or designation of any office or position 
     appropriated for is different from that specifically 
     established by such Act, the rate of compensation and the 
     designation in this Act shall be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto: Provided, That the provisions in this Act 
     for the various items of official expenses of Members, 
     officers, and committees of the House of Representatives and 
     Senate, and clerk hire for Senators and Members of the

[[Page 11743]]

     House of Representatives shall be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto.

                          consulting services

       Sec. 204.  The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
     limited to those contracts where such expenditures are a 
     matter of public record and available for public inspection, 
     except where otherwise provided under existing law, or under 
     existing Executive order issued under existing law.

                         awards and settlements

       Sec. 205.  Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated 
     to the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of 
     the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1415(a)) to pay awards and settlements as authorized under 
     such subsection.

                             costs of lbfmc

       Sec. 206.  Amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     any legislative branch entity which participates in the 
     Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC) 
     established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available 
     to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined 
     by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared 
     among all participating legislative branch entities (in such 
     allocations among the entities as the entities may determine) 
     may not exceed $2,000.

                         landscape maintenance

       Sec. 207.  The Architect of the Capitol, in consultation 
     with the District of Columbia, is authorized to maintain and 
     improve the landscape features, excluding streets, in the 
     irregular shaped grassy areas bounded by Washington Avenue, 
     SW on the northeast, Second Street SW on the west, Square 582 
     on the south, and the beginning of the I-395 tunnel on the 
     southeast.

                        limitation on transfers

       Sec. 208.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriation Act.

                      guided tours of the capitol

       Sec. 209. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds made available to the Architect of the Capitol in 
     this Act may be used to eliminate or restrict guided tours of 
     the United States Capitol which are led by employees and 
     interns of offices of Members of Congress and other offices 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate.
       (b) At the direction of the Capitol Police Board, or at the 
     direction of the Architect of the Capitol with the approval 
     of the Capitol Police Board, guided tours of the United 
     States Capitol which are led by employees and interns 
     described in subsection (a) may be suspended temporarily or 
     otherwise subject to restriction for security or related 
     reasons to the same extent as guided tours of the United 
     States Capitol which are led by the Architect of the Capitol.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 210.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, excluding Senate items, 
     exceeds the amount of proposed new budget authority is $0.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2012''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 112-173. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, except, pursuant to the order 
of the House of today, amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 12 may be 
offered out of the specified order. Each such amendment may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
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.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Honda

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and offer the amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 14, line 12, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am introducing on behalf of 
my colleague, Sanford Bishop, would increase the Capitol Police by a 
modest $1 million for the district office security for Members.
  After the shooting of our colleague, Ms. Giffords, the Sergeant-At-
Arms and the Capitol Police provided Members with access to security 
reviews. These reviews and guidelines by the Sergeant-At-Arms provided 
Members with a litany of equipment and capital improvements that are 
needed to improve district office security. Even though the 
recommendations came from our security agencies, Members were left to 
fund these upgrades through their office budget.
  When Members' offices are being cut by more than 10 percent in a 
year, I'm afraid the strain to continue constituent services will 
impede any Member's ability to pay for these upgrades. I'm hoping this 
amendment will be a small step in providing a centralized pot of funds 
so these upgrades do not go ignored.
  The offset is from a lower priority House account that funds 
transition costs in 2012. It is not a transition year.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want to say to the gentleman that we are all 
concerned about security upgrades, and we accept the amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge all of my 
colleagues to support the Bishop amendment to H.R. 2551, the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This 
amendment would restore $1 million in funding to the Capitol Police to 
provide support for security upgrades to Congressional District offices 
as recommended by the House Sergeant of Arms earlier this year.
  Most members, particularly members from rural districts with more 
than one district office, will undertake a variety of ``security'' 
upgrades and improvements to their local offices as a result of the 
tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and related security 
threats.
  Coupled with the costs of these new upgrades are reductions in the 
Members' Representational Allowance MRA for the second year in a row. 
This includes the 5 percent reduction in MRA in place for Fiscal Year 
2011 and the proposed 6.4 percent reduction in MRA proposed in the 
Fiscal Year 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which will be 
considered on the floor this week. The Fiscal Year 2012 proposed 
reduction in MRA will result in an average hit of approximately $95,000 
per office, which will likely pose a severe strain on Member budgets. 
Additionally, you should know that security upgrades and improvements 
to Senate District offices will not be paid through MRA's.
  My amendment would simply provide an additional $1 million in funding 
via the Capitol Police for security improvements for those offices 
impacted by new House security policy. The proposed offset comes from 
the ``Transition Activities'' account, which essentially provides 
funding for furniture and related equipment for Freshman members, which 
of course, should be minimal in Fiscal Year 2012.
  Mr. Chair, it would be our intent, that if this amendment is accepted 
by this House, that the Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, members of 
our Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and other pertinent 
House personnel, would work together to devise an effective plan and 
strategy for the use, approval and disbursement of these funds for 
district office security purposes.
  The pressure and demands which we already have in managing our MRA's 
are great, and will be more difficult in the coming year. So it is 
vitally important that we provide Members of this body some financial 
relief for the costs of district office security improvements.
  While the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee has the 
smallest budget of the thirteen Appropriations Subcommittees, and some 
would say that it is the least glamorous, its work is of vital 
importance to the entire nation.
  As most of you know, the Subcommittee is responsible for the 
protection and preservation of the treasures in the U.S. Capitol and 
the Library of Congress, the publishing and dissemination of government 
information by the Government Printing Office, the objective analysis

[[Page 11744]]

of our budget and economic decisions by the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the resources with which we provide representation to our 
constituents.
  However, our collective effectiveness in representing our 
constituents is potentially at risk given the proposed reductions in 
our MRA's.
  And I would like to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
that after the tragic shootings in Tucson, Members were ``strongly 
encouraged'' to provide additional security for themselves, their staff 
and their constituents in the district--to be paid out of Members' 
accounts, with possibly some help from the Sergeant at Arms.
  With this bill's cut of 6.4 percent in Members' Representational 
Allowance, combined with the 10 percent in the Sergeant at Arms budget, 
these improvements in security will be difficult.
  Finally, if the Capitol Police are going to assess more threats 
against Members and take a more active role in district security, then 
their budget should also reflect these increased demands instead of 
being frozen.
  Mr. Chair, I would also like to enter into the Record, a copy of an 
article that ran in Roll Call, highlighting the need for enhanced 
safety advancements for Members of Congress, their staffs, and 
constituencies.
  I would ask that you support this important amendment. Thank you for 
your consideration.

                    [From Roll Call, July 21, 2011]

            Cuts to Sergeant-at-Arms Raise Concerns for Some

                         (By Daniel Newhauser)

       After the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in 
     January, Members began looking into ways to secure their 
     district offices. Now, some Democrats are questioning whether 
     House leaders will give them enough money to do so.
       Members' Representational Allowances and the House 
     Sergeant-at-Arms office face budget cuts, while House 
     appropriators have proposed flat funding for the Capitol 
     Police.
       At a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday to set parameters 
     for this week's floor debate on the legislative branch 
     spending bill, Rep. Jared Polis--who said he received threats 
     as recently as last week--singled out those cuts as his main 
     concern.
       ``Security is hardly a luxury,'' the Colorado Democrat 
     said. ``How can you justify cutting the Sergeant-at-Arms by 
     10 percent?''
       Although the Sergeant-at-Arms' budget appears larger than 
     it was last Congress, the increase actually comes because it 
     was combined with the Office of Emergency Management, which 
     was created after 9/11 to assist in emergency planning. That 
     office was flat-funded, while the Sergeant-at-Arms received 
     an $890,000 cut.
       Rep. Ander Crenshaw, chairman of the Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, assured Polis that 
     the reduction would not affect security. In an interview 
     before the hearing, the Florida Republican said 
     administrative employees and equipment purchases would most 
     likely take the hit.
       ``We made sure that none of the cuts to this office were 
     going to affect any kind of safety issues,'' he said.
       After the Giffords shooting, the Sergeant-at-Arms offered 
     Members free ADT Security assessments in the district 
     offices. The House Administration Committee also authorized 
     Members to use their MRAs to pay for suggested security 
     enhancements.
       But between the 5 percent MRA cut of last fiscal year and 
     the 6.4 percent cut proposed for fiscal 2012--a reduction 
     that would average about $80,000 per office--Members might be 
     put in a situation where they have to choose to fire one 
     employee in order to afford to protect the rest, some 
     Democrats argued.
       ``We are told that we need to secure our district offices 
     more--for our safety, the safety of our staff and, most 
     importantly, the safety of our constituents,'' said Rep. Mike 
     Honda (D-Calif.), the subcommittee's ranking member, in a 
     statement. ``How are we supposed to pay for that?''
       Rep. G.K. Butterfield said he had planned to install 
     bulletproof glass and a digital combination keypad lock at 
     his North Carolina district office, but now he's not so sure.
       ``That was the plan. Now that we've got this dramatic cut, 
     I don't know what we're going to do,'' the Democrat said.
       Rep. Sanford Bishop said he's skeptical Members will be 
     left with enough money in their MRAs to pay for the upgrades. 
     He was advised to improve lighting and create a barrier 
     between his Georgia offices' public and work areas.
       ``The security assessments that the Sergeant-at-Arms paid 
     for for all of our offices were very, very telling. But to 
     implement the recommendations for the safety of our 
     constituents and Members and staffs, it's going to cost some 
     funds,'' the Democrat said. ``The MRA is not sufficient.''
       Bishop has proposed an amendment to the legislative branch 
     bill that would reassign $1 million from a fund used to 
     assist freshmen in procuring furniture to create a fund 
     within the Capitol Police to assist in paying for district 
     security upgrades.
       Sergeant-at-Arms spokeswoman Kern Hanley said that no 
     matter where the budget ends up, the agency would ``be able 
     to fully execute our security mission'' and that they will 
     help Members efficiently spend their money.
       ``We will coordinate the provision of professional security 
     assistance to Members by conducting surveys and reviewing 
     office selection options, security systems and policies to 
     aid them in achieving the best value for their security 
     dollars spent,'' Hanley said in an email.
       Republicans said that is the real lesson of the budget cut: 
     Do more with less.
       Rep. Michael Grimm, a former FBI agent, said Members can 
     mitigate the security impact of the cuts by raising their 
     awareness when they are at home.
       ``We have to be a little more efficient but also a little 
     more diligent so the Capitol Police has less work,'' the New 
     York Republican said. ``None of that costs money.''

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Honda).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been 
made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $619,200)''.
       Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $619,200)''.
       Page 6, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $619,200)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $619,200)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Legislative Branch bill would 
decrease funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics, the OCE, by 
$619,200 and transfer these funds to the spending reduction account.
  I have offered this amendment because I believe there is a 
substantial bipartisan consensus, one, that the responsibilities of the 
OCE are redundant and duplicative of the House Ethics Committee; two, 
that the OCE's operations are substantially staff driven, and the staff 
has taken the OCE's mission well beyond what was intended in the 
statute that created the entity; three, that the procedures of the OCE 
are unfair and sometimes abusive of the rights of Members of the House; 
four, that a substantial part of the funds we spend on the OCE waste 
taxpayers' money; and, five, that using those funds to reduce our debt 
and deficit would be a far better use.
  In these difficult budget times, I believe we have an obligation to 
judge the OCE on the same criteria on which we measure other agencies 
of the Federal Government. Using those criteria, my amendment proposes 
to eliminate duplication, demand accountability and adherence to the 
purposes for which the agency was created, demand fair due process 
treatment for Members of Congress as we would for other employees in 
both the private and public sectors, and force us to make a choice 
about how best to use our over $600,000 of taxpayer funds.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as far as I'm concerned, 
is merely a punishment because some Members haven't liked some of the 
things the OCE has done. I will tell you that, having drafted the rule, 
I don't like everything they've done either, but the appropriate way to 
deal with that is to amend the rules of the House or to try to talk to 
them to amend their own rules.
  There are ways to do the things that others have been concerned 
about, some of which I share. I have expressed my concern on certain 
issues to members of the OCE in the past. It's not to just pick a 
number and slash that number of 40 percent. That is merely, as far

[[Page 11745]]

as I'm concerned, draconian punishment to say, We're the boss; you're 
not. It's not going to change one thing that the OCE does. It will 
simply make it a little bit more difficult for this House to maintain 
the integrity level that we have struggled so desperately to gain back 
over the years.
  We've had our troubles. We will have problems in the future. Some of 
our colleagues will do something that none of us will like. The 
question is not that. The question is: How does the public see us?
  I have a letter that I would like to submit to the Record that I 
think everybody got in their office today from the Campaign Legal 
Center, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 
Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and 
U.S. PIRG. I don't agree with everything that each one of these 
organizations stands for either; however, they all agree that this 
agency, even with its flaws, has improved the reputation of this House 
when it comes to policing our own Members.
  Again, I want to be clear: I do not think that they have done a 
perfect job. My guess is I don't think most Members think that the 
Ethics Committee has done a perfect job over the years. That's not the 
measure. If that's the measure, none of us would be in Congress. We 
couldn't get anything done because there is no such thing as 
perfection. The measure is simply: What has been done to improve the 
image of this House? And I think everyone in Washington who follows 
these things agrees that the creation of this group and the actions it 
has taken overall have improved the image of this House. And I would 
say that a cut of this level is simply a draconian measure to punish 
them for what they have done as opposed to try to improve what they do 
in the future.

   Vote No on Watt Amendment To Weaken Office of Congressional Ethics

                                                    July 21, 2011.
       Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose an amendment 
     by Representative Mel Watt that would gut the Office of 
     Congressional Ethics by reducing the funding for OCE by 
     $619,000 or 40 percent.
       The recent dysfunctional performance by the House Ethics 
     Committee has only served to reinforce the critically 
     important role being played by the OCE in the House ethics 
     enforcement process.
       The OCE, under bipartisan leadership, has done an 
     outstanding job in carrying out its mission to help protect 
     the integrity of the House. There is absolutely no basis for 
     reducing OCE's funding.
       We strongly urge you to vote no on the Watt amendment.
     Campaign Legal Center,
     Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
     Common Cause,
     Democracy 21,
     League of Women Voters,
     Public Citizen,
     U.S. PIRG.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
yielding, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. And the 
reason for it is this:
  As I watched the structure of the OCE be set up--and I'd say to the 
gentleman, for over 200 years we've had the Ethics Committee to take 
care of this business. If we want to amend the rules of the House, 
let's go back to what the rules of the House are. But the OCE has 
crossed the line over and over again.
  And I would make this point: that they have gone on witch hunts. They 
have taken pieces of information that came from political opposition on 
either side and embellished that into things.
  And they have violated Roman law, English common law, and the decency 
of the House by this: Classified confidential information used against 
Members of Congress who don't have an opportunity to face their 
accuser, whose reputations have been damaged by sometimes--I'll just 
say certainly leaks to the press, sometimes, I suspect, willful leaks 
to the press. We need to go back to the Ethics Committee dealing with 
this business as it has been for over two centuries.
  This bill only passed by one vote a few years ago, and now we have a 
whole machinery out there whose sole purpose it is is to ask activist 
organizations on both sides to come in and send information in that 
would be used against Members of Congress.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know about Roman law, and I'm a little shaky on 
English law as well, but I will tell you that it doesn't violate any 
American laws that I'm aware of. If it did, they would be subject to 
all kinds of legal proceedings against them.
  I understand fully well that some Members didn't like voting for 
this. They don't like the idea of people other than Members of Congress 
looking at anything we do. I understand that. And there was a great 
attempt to try to balance that fear with a movement forward, which is 
what we did.
  I'd like to point out very clearly that when the Congress changed 
from Democrat to Republican, there was no attempt by anybody that I'm 
aware of to change one aspect of this rule, not one aspect. That was 
the appropriate time. Had someone done it, I would have been happy to 
work with them.
  I've expressed my concerns here. I've expressed them to the OCE. I've 
expressed them to other Members. I share some of these concerns. But I 
don't think it's an appropriate thing to simply wheel the old-fashioned 
political tool of a big, heavy draconian weapon and try to slash their 
budget and think that you're going to change it. You're not. And you 
will be perceived, this House will be perceived by the general public 
for what this is: simply an attempt to roll back our progress on 
policing our own activities.
  I understand that that might make some people comfortable, but it's 
not the right thing to do and people here know that. This is payback. 
And I don't mind--I'm one of the few Members of this House who proudly 
call myself a politician. I understand payback, but let's call it what 
it is: We don't like what they do, and we're going to defund them. 
Don't pretend that something else is going on. That's what it is. It 
will be bad for the House of Representatives, and it will not change 
the things that people have expressed that they don't like.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentleman.
  I really understand that the gentleman from North Carolina is 
highlighting serious concerns with processes that he sees with the 
Office of Congressional Ethics, and I share some of his concerns. As 
well, I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has. It is really raising the question of trying to 
improve the ethics process in our House and improving the underlying 
authorization that may be more appropriate, and seeking more 
appropriate first steps.
  I think this may be a situation where we may not be able to support 
the gentleman's amendment, but at the same time support the issue of 
improving what it is that he is seeking. I think that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts would probably be willing to work on that, and I 
think my friends on the other side would be willing, too.
  Reluctantly, while I am not personally in opposition, I think for 
this portion of the process, I am in opposition.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just address this whole issue of retaliation. This is not 
retaliation. This is a better use of the money than the OCE is making 
of it. There is an undercurrent in this House. Everybody knows that the 
OCE processes have been unfair, undemocratic, and they have singled 
people out. It should stop, and we should stand up and say that it 
should stop.
  We did not give the OCE the authority to initiate themselves 
investigations without an outside complaint.

[[Page 11746]]

They have systematically done that. And to the extent they have done 
it, we have provided more funding than I think is appropriate, which is 
why I got the 40 percent as opposed to 100 percent.
  I want them to continue to go on with the investigations that are out 
there. And when other people initiate them, they should be allowed to 
pursue them. But they should not be allowed to initiate on their own 
witch hunts against Members of Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,050,750)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,050,750)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding 
for the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent and transfer more than 
$1 million to the deficit reduction account.
  The Joint Economic Committee is tasked with many of the duties of 
other congressional committees. Those other congressional committees 
already perform these duties, such as holding hearings, performing 
research, and studying the U.S. economy.
  We here in America are facing a tremendous financial crisis. The 
legislative branch should not be excluded during budget cut debates.
  The Joint Economic Committee performs overlapping duties that could 
easily be maintained by the Ways and Means Committee or the Budget 
Committee, or even the respective leadership policy committees. A 25 
percent cut is very modest considering the gravity of the enormous debt 
that we are accumulating each and every day, and we must begin paying 
down that debt.
  Our debt level is unsustainable, totally unsustainable. We are broke 
as a Nation. We have to start cutting in every aspect of the 
government's expenditures, and I believe the Joint Economic Committee 
can afford it, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Joint Economic 
Committee by 25 percent, or over $1 million. The funding included in 
the bill for the JEC is already less than the funding level provided to 
the JEC in fiscal year 2008. The Joint Economic Committee is a 
bicameral congressional committee composed of 10 Members from each, the 
Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 10 Democrats and 10 
Republicans on the committee.
  The gentleman does not have an amendment to go after the House 
Committee, but instead has chosen to go after funding for this joint 
committee. I hope this isn't an effort to strike funding because this 
committee is jointly managed with the Senate. The last thing that this 
Congress needs is less collaboration between the two bodies. We need to 
continue collaboration.
  The main purpose of the JEC is to make a continuing study of matters 
related to the U.S. economy, and this is exactly the type of analysis 
Members from both parties and both bodies need as we try to analyze 
complex economic issues as a Nation.
  I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I respect 
very much the gentleman from Georgia's efforts on cutting and shrinking 
the size of government, but the Joint Economic Committee is already 
under the appropriations recommendation operating below the 2006 level. 
So it is doing more than its share of shrinking and running 
efficiently.
  Unlike other committees, the Joint Economic Committee is created by 
law to be the counterpart for a Congress to weigh against the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers. It is bicameral. It is 
bipartisan. It provides information important to the size of 
government, the efficiency of government, and what can get our economy 
going. An example of the research is the 4 months, weekends, evenings, 
that was done going through every page and provision of the new 2,801-
page health care law and identifying all of the new bureaucracies, 
agencies, and taxes that will be in between you and your doctor. That 
research could not be done otherwise. And I want to tell you, our 
Democrat friends will tell you that it provides the same type of 
analysis for their issues.
  This is the type of information that Congress needs as we move 
forward on the critical issues of the economy. This committee has done 
its share of cuts, and I respectfully oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HONDA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a 
bicameral, bipartisan committee. But as I mentioned during my initial 
remarks, these functions could be very well performed by other 
committees. These are duplicative services, and so I urge adoption of 
my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $467,000)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $467,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply reduce 
funding for the Office of Compliance to the fiscal year 2008 level and 
would transfer almost half a million dollars into the spending 
reduction account.
  At a time when we are facing such pressing fiscal crisis, we have a 
financial fiasco here in America because of the outrageous spending 
Congress has been doing by both parties. Scaling back the spending for 
the Office of Compliance to the 2008 level is a modest and reasonable 
request. We have to continue to make cuts in every corner of the budget 
that we can, and we have to prioritize paying down our massive Federal 
debt that is totally unsustainable.

                              {time}  2020

  Again, if most offices within the Federal Government can reduce their 
spending back to 2008 levels, it is only logical for the Office of 
Compliance to do the very same. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page 11747]]

  THE CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. The amendment would cut the Office of Compliance by 
$467,000, even though the office is cut in the underlying bill by 6.4 
percent--the same as the overall bill reduction. I have to question the 
motives of cutting the Office of Compliance disproportionately to the 
overall bill. Maybe the gentleman is not aware, but this office was 
established in 1995 by the Republican Congress to satisfy the 
Republican Contract with America.
  The office implements the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure 
that Congress complies with safety, discrimination, and accessibility 
laws that everyone else in the Nation must follow. This amendment 
suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements to provide our 
workers with a fair and safe working environment.
  Therefore, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks 
and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. I just want to disclose the same comments I did in the 
last paragraph, that this amendment suggests that Congress should ease 
up on requirements providing our workers with a fair and safe working 
environment. I don't think we should back off on that.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend Mr. 
Honda's comments. I offered eight amendments in total. Only three were 
held to be in order. So I'm not looking at anything specifically, 
except for the whole bill, to try to cut spending. Because it's 
absolutely critical as we go forward that we put this country back on a 
good fiscal standing. I believe very firmly that we need to look at 
every single nook and corner, every dollar spent by the Federal 
Government, and cut wherever we can. I think this is a reasonable 
request.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Hayworth

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $632,780)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $632,780)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  My amendment proposes that we cut the $632,780 proposed increase in 
funding to the Botanic Garden and transfer that amount to the spending 
reduction account. While the Botanic Garden in the FY12 budget receives 
an increase, almost every other account in the Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill has been decreased, including for the Congressional 
Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, JEC, JCT, and the 
Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds, and Security account.
  The Botanic Garden provides education and outreach programs, and they 
are definitely of value. They have been commended in the committee 
report for their accomplishments. But it is a time of austerity and the 
Botanic Garden should take the necessary steps to continue to pursue 
those programs with the same funding as they received in fiscal year 
'11. Throughout the rest of the legislative branch in the Federal 
Government we're cutting costs, we're eliminating employee spots, and 
we're taking other reductive measures. Each of our offices and 
committees will be operating with additional cuts. The Botanic Garden 
can itself continue to provide successful services and maintain its 
venue with the same level of funding as in FY 2011.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
submitted with my colleague from New York to reduce the spending at the 
Botanic Garden. We're in the middle of a spending crisis that may lead 
to a sovereign debt crisis. In my view, there are very few programs 
funded by the Federal Government that can be exempt from fiscal 
responsibility and scrutiny. This is an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I 
applaud the Appropriations Committee's leadership and commitment to 
making significant spending reductions in this bill, including reducing 
personal office expenses and committee budgets.
  There are many wonderful museums and points of interest here in 
Washington, D.C., and the Botanic Garden is among the best. My 
amendment, which would reduce its funding appropriations and take away 
its proposed increase, is not based on any act or omission by the 
Botanic Garden. They run a great program here. But let me be clear: as 
an avid outdoorsman and a gardener myself, I personally derive much 
benefit from the Botanic Garden right here on Capitol Hill. I have 
visited these beautiful places many times and always learn and see 
something new.
  Our amendment is not intended to make the statement that the Botanic 
Garden is not a good and worthy program. It is. But it is not 
constitutionally mandated. It is not essential to providing key 
services to Americans. It does not generate jobs. It does contribute to 
the knowledge and understanding of the world, and that has great value.
  Our country is in the midst of an epic fiscal crisis that threatens 
the livelihood and well-being of every single American, and even good 
and worthy programs such as the United States Botanic Garden cannot be 
spared from every effort to scale down our Federal budget 
significantly. This proposed amendment is a fair cut, indeed, in light 
of our fiscal crisis, a modest cut and consistent with the committee's 
recommendations for other programs within this bill.
  I am confident that even with this reduced budget, the Botanic Garden 
will be able to offer an educational experience to all of us and to our 
constituents when they come to visit Capitol Hill. It is for those 
constituents that we offer this amendment and ask you for your support.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. While I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment, I 
think the record should be clear on the funding level in the bill. To 
suggest that the $600,000 increase in the Botanic Garden is somehow not 
needed is simply not true. The funding will be used for painting, 
electrical upgrades, elevator maintenance, evaporative cooling system 
upgrades, and the replacement for the vent system used in the plant 
greenhouse. I applaud the chairman for funding this necessary 
maintenance work so we do not have more expensive deferred maintenance 
in the future.
  This bill does not fund millions in the maintenance needed by the 
Architect to sustain and improve our aging national iconic buildings, 
including the Capitol. However, the chairman found a small amount of 
funding to try and keep up with the maintenance at the Botanic Garden, 
and the Members attack because they can get a good headline in the 
paper.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the point that the 
gentleman from California has made; but in a time when we are running a 
deficit of $14 trillion, at least, we have to seek to pursue sensible 
measures to reduce budgets wherever we can. And we are, unfortunately, 
faced with a time in our history in which what is

[[Page 11748]]

nice to have or good to have must yield to what we absolutely must 
have. Therefore, I will defend the proposed reduction in the account 
that we have made in this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. I believe that there are other amendments forthcoming. I'm 
just very concerned about it, and I agree with the chairman in making 
this funding necessary. I know the Botanic Garden. I enjoy it. And I 
think that the funding that he has provided is sufficient to push 
forward the maintenance so that we do not incur a greater maintenance 
problem in the future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the gentleman 
from California that the Botanic Garden is a treasure. I, too, have 
visited it, with great delight. But I would suggest that we perhaps 
could get together and seek voluntary contributions to fund this 
additional budgetary amount so that we can respect the urgent needs of 
the United States budget and of the United States taxpayers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  2030


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,192,000)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,192,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment would reasonably reduce funding for the Botanic Garden 
to the fiscal year 2008 level and transfer more than $3 million to the 
spending reduction account. This bill funds the garden at $12 million. 
I'm only asking that the Botanic Garden be funded at $9 million.
  Our Nation is broke. We are broke. There's no question about that. We 
need to face the fact that we are broke. Yet we continue to add to our 
enormous debt by borrowing more than $4 billion each day.
  I believe, and I think that the American people would agree, that it 
is more reasonable to ask the Botanic Garden to stop trimming their 
hedges and to start trimming their budgets, like many of the other 
offices have done within the Federal Government and like many families 
and businesses have done all across this Nation.
  We cannot afford to continue down this same path of fiscal 
irresponsibility that we have been heading down. I urge my colleagues 
to help me put America back on a different course and to support this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, we just had an amendment that reduced the funding by 
$630,000. Now we have an amendment that will reduce it by 26 percent. I 
would suggest that that is a little bit extreme.
  We as a subcommittee looked at all the agencies that we oversee. We 
reduced spending, as I said earlier, by 6.2 percent. Some agencies were 
cut more than others. The Botanic Garden at less than $600,000 will be 
at the current spending level this year. We feel like that needs to be 
where it is so they can continue to do the job they do. With a million 
people coming there, I think it's important, and I don't think we 
should cut it another 26 percent.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's remarks about this. When 
families face hard economic times, they look at extraneous expenses. I 
love plants. My wife and I work in our yard. We have plants that we 
baby, and she waters every day, so we certainly have a great 
appreciation of botanic gardens, plants, and the things that plants 
bring in the way of enjoyment. But when faced with hard economic times, 
people don't go out to Home Depot and buy more plants when they can't 
pay their bills, and that's the situation we're in as a Nation. Though 
the Botanic Garden is a very beautiful place, with a lot of very 
beautiful plants in it, I think it's not the responsible thing to 
continue to try to grow more things that are going to continue to grow 
the debt and spend money we just simply do not have.
  As we've gone through the authorization process in the three 
committees I'm in, and as we've gone through these appropriation bills, 
I'm reminded of a saying that was utilized during our founding periods, 
but with a new twist, and the new twist is this: Don't cut me, don't 
cut thee, cut that fellow behind the tree. I hear that in the 
authorization committees over and over again:
  ``We have to cut our spending but don't cut me. Cut somebody else.''
  ``We have to get our debt under control, but don't cut me. Cut 
somebody behind the tree.''
  There's nobody behind the tree. America deserves better. This is a 
simple cut. The Botanic Garden, as lush and pretty as it is, is not a 
necessary expenditure of the Federal Government, and I think the 
American people, if they had a choice, would support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's comments 
and the comments from the other side, but we just simply have to stop 
spending money that we do not have. It's irresponsible to do so, and so 
I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  I just wanted to have the American people understand why we are 
opposing this amendment.
  ``The United States Botanic Garden is rooted in the Nation's 
heritage. During the late 18th century, George Washington, Thomas 
Jefferson, and James Madison shared the dream of a national botanic 
garden and were instrumental in establishing one on the National Mall 
in 1820.
  ``In continuous operation and open to the public since 1850, the 
Botanic Garden moved to its present location in 1933, a complex located 
along the north and south sides of Independence Avenue bordered by 
First Street and Third Street. The garden includes the Conservatory; 
the National Garden, which opened in 2006; and Bartholdi Park, which 
was created in 1932. A plant production and support facility opened in 
Anacostia in 1933 includes greenhouse bays and maintenance shops.''
  This is a very important thing to the American people when they come 
here from all over the country. They want to see the garden, the 
Botanic Garden, and I just feel that we have to figure a way to fund 
this and to take care of the facility. This was a dream of the Founders 
of this Republic, and I think we should honor that dream and we should 
defeat both of these amendments and do the work that's necessary to 
keep it in a first-class condition for the American people.

[[Page 11749]]


  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. The chairman of the subcommittee should be applauded for 
adequately funding the operations and necessary maintenance work so we 
do not have a more expensive deferred maintenance in the future, which 
usually is the result.
  Now, about cutting and about plants. I think I know a little bit 
about plants and trees and people behind trees. There is someone behind 
the tree, and sometimes it's a gardener that doesn't know how to prune 
it to its proper shape so that it will express itself properly.
  The Botanic Garden, let's face it, is a national treasure. It is 
something that people come to to enjoy. It's a heritage that our 
forefathers left behind that we should be able to maintain now and for 
the future. It's a place of respite and contemplation, and God knows 
that we all need that sometimes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.

                              {time}  2040


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Altmire

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 16, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment with the text that has been placed at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 7:

       Insert ``first'' after ``the''.

  The CHAIR. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I rise today in support of an important program at the 
Library of Congress, whose sole mission is to preserve the books and 
documents that tell our Nation's history. The Library of Congress, a 
211-year-old institution and our national library, offers an incredible 
range of research, interactive programming and innovative technologies. 
However, most would agree that books remain the fundamental components 
of any library.
  Since 1995, the Library of Congress has been conducting a specific 
preservation campaign to save its books. The current program, known as 
the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program, aims to treat and 
preserve millions of hardbound books, paperback books, manuscripts, 
newspapers, maps, artworks, music scores, letters, pamphlets, and 
drawings. The program ensures that future generations are able to enjoy 
the important historical artifacts that are housed in the Library of 
Congress.
  Many of the older books and papers at the Library of Congress are 
printed on acidic paper, which can turn brittle and fall apart with 
age. Deacidification extends the useful life of these works for up to 
1,000 years longer than their useful life without treatment. Delaying 
the acidification process means more books would deteriorate beyond 
repair. Unfortunately, many old books in the Library's collection are 
already too brittle or in such poor shape that they cannot be preserved 
further. We must continue the work now to maintain the remaining books 
that can still be saved before they deteriorate further.
  I am offering this amendment which would restore $1 million in 
funding for the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program at the Library 
of Congress. Decisions that will affect the preservation of our 
Nation's heritage and history must be made carefully. We have to ensure 
that the Library has the resources it needs to maintain its 
collections.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, if we cut $1 million from this project for 
this 1 year, as this legislation proposes to do, the project will take 
an estimated 20 years longer to complete while books continue to age 
and lose years off their useful life. Furthermore, the cut to this 
particular program is about 20 percent. It's disproportionate to the 
overall levels of cuts to expenses in other programs within the Library 
of Congress.
  While cuts must be made, this program is something that cannot be put 
on hold. It cannot wait. Books will continue to decay, and we will risk 
losing irreplaceable works that chronicle and illustrate our Nation's 
history.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for that good amendment, and we 
have no objection to it.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. In reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments. I'm going to go ahead and read my last paragraph if the 
gentleman doesn't mind, but I do appreciate that.
  The Library of Congress, the repository of our national knowledge, 
does incredibly important work in preserving our Nation's history. In 
turn, we must provide them with the capacity to preserve their books 
for generations to come.
  I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stutzman

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,414,150.29)''.
       Page 29, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,531,990.51)''.
       Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $4,946,140.80)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the entire Rules 
Committee for ruling this amendment in order and for allowing it to be 
heard today.
  This amendment asks the Government Printing Office to take an 
additional 4.3 percent cut that, if passed, would bring the total 
reduction of the GPO for fiscal year 2012 to 20 percent. The additional 
4.3 percent cut would mean a total reduction of nearly $5 million. This 
may not seem like a lot here in Washington, but the American people 
demand government to make the same sacrifices at our offices and here 
in Washington as the families and small business owners make at their 
homes and places of work. It is our duty to manage our own House in a 
fiscally prudent manner. Let me lay out some numbers that may put this 
amendment's small reduction to the GPO in proper perspective.

[[Page 11750]]

  The GPO spends over $28 million a year on the Congressional Record 
program alone. Over $8 million of that amount goes to the printing, 
binding and distribution of our Congressional Record. This includes 
payment for 4,551 copies of the Congressional Record despite the 
documents having been available digitally since 1994.
  I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but spending $28 million to see 
and print what is said in Congress seems to be a raw deal. It really 
seems like a subsidy for a magazine that no one really wants to read. I 
have a couple of examples I'd like to share just to show the printing 
that goes on within the printing office.
  Many of these documents show up in our offices and go straight into 
the recycling cans. One in particular that I found interesting is this 
document from the CBO, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue 
Options,'' which has been printed en masse and is sitting around many 
of the offices on Capitol Hill. I think that this is a very appropriate 
measure we can take. When a small business is struggling, it must do 
without certain luxuries or conveniences. A business may cut marketing 
and printing costs in turn. A doctor's office might stop its magazine 
subscriptions it places in its waiting room. They expect us to do the 
same.
  In May of this year, the Public Printer of the United States, who 
testified before the House Appropriations Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee, cited nearly 100,000 square feet of wasted government 
space. He also asked that GPO be taken out of the security business. I 
would have never guessed that the Government Printing Office spends $13 
million a year on security.
  My overall point is that there are creative solutions in order to 
make this small additional reduction to bring the reduction of the GPO 
to 20 percent. I applaud the recent internal efforts of Representative 
Lungren of California and Representative Gingrey of Georgia asking 
Members to opt out of such waste. However, I don't believe that that 
goes far enough in reducing the spending in this agency.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finish by saying that a further 4.3 percent 
reduction in an office that prints unnecessary publications is not too 
much to ask. Let's take action. Let's do without as many words, and 
show Americans we can keep and make cuts of our own here in Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for bringing all of these issues 
to our attention; but I want to direct him to United States Code, title 
44, which basically directs the Government Printing Office to do the 
things that they do. So, if the gentleman is concerned, I'd suggest the 
first thing he do is read title 44 and find out what is required by 
Congress. If we change that, we might be able to change some of the 
printing that goes on.
  The Government Printing Office only produces what it is ordered to 
produce by Congress. I think we all know that we've already cut their 
budget by 16 percent, and I don't know what's magic about the last 4.3 
percent. I think our subcommittee, through a series of hearings and 
informal hearings, looked at the facts. We set some priorities, and we 
said we're going to reduce the funding by 16 percent. We detail in our 
report some of the things that are of interest to us. We actually are 
going to take a look at privatizing the entire Government Printing 
Office, but once again, so much of that is driven by this title 44.

                              {time}  2050

  Already GPO has announced a buyout program. They're going to reduce 
their workforce by 15 percent through this buyout program. That's 330 
positions. And any further significant changes are going to require a 
change in this printing law.
  So while I think the gentleman makes some good points, I simply want 
to say that we looked at the facts. We reduced the spending by 16 
percent. We think that's appropriate.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I do appreciate the points about the responsibilities of the GPO and 
that they are required by law to print certain documents, but let me 
give you several examples. And again, let's remind ourselves that all 
of these--this is actually an environmentally friendly bill. This is an 
amendment that would actually reduce the cost and the amount of paper 
that we print many of these words on.
  These are all available to any American on the Internet, and 
especially to each one of us as individuals of Congress, Members of 
Congress, and to our staff. But we have the Congressional Record, the 
Congressional Directory, the Senate and the House Journals, memorial 
addresses of Members, nominations, U.S. Code and Supplements, laws and 
treaties, envelopes provided to Members of Congress for the mailing of 
documents, House and Senate business and committee calendars, bills, 
resolutions and amendments, committee reports and prints, committee 
hearings. All of these are obviously very important documents, but I 
believe in the day and age that we live in, all of these can be done 
electronically and digitally and would actually save dollars for the 
American taxpayer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Honda from 
California.
  Mr. HONDA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  My daddy used to say that you should really be careful of zealots 
because they come in hacking and hewing. I think there are a couple of 
things that the chairman has pointed out that require some study and 
thought.
  The gentleman who's wanting to do the cutting, he indicated there was 
a book that was talking about deficits, but that book has been paid by 
CBO, so it is not a cost of GPO.
  And then in terms of security, GPO has the security, but they're 
required to issue passports, and with passports you have to have 
security there.
  So I think a more studied approach would probably be in place. Cuts 
for cuts' sake, I think, is, in the words of my father, foolhardy. I 
would recommend that we slow down and make haste with all deliberate 
speed, and I agree with my chairman here.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I yield myself 1 minute, the remaining balance of my 
time, Mr. Chairman.
  I understand the gentleman's point about CBO spending their dollars 
on this publication, but we see these publications around Capitol Hill 
everywhere. You go to any congressional office and you will see 
documents and publications that people never use.
  Again, let's advance ourselves into the day and age that we live in 
and using these documents in electronic format.
  But also my understanding is that the 16 percent reduction is 
returning ourselves to the 2009 levels, if my understanding is correct. 
I believe that we need to reduce ourselves even further than that.
  Again, this is a very simple amendment. I think the American people 
would agree with this and that we are saving every dollar and looking 
at every opportunity to save tax dollars.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I might consume and simply 
to say that the subcommittee looked at this. We have concerns. We 
reduced spending by 16 percent. If you want to have any more 
significant savings, you are going to have to change the printing laws 
that are there in chapter 54.
  So I would simply say I think we've done a good job of what we're 
trying to do. We are looking for ways. And remember, they print what 
they're asked to print. When GAO asks them to print something, they pay 
for it. A lot of people say that we ought to just privatize the whole 
thing, and that's something we're thinking about doing.
  But I think we've cut down sufficiently. I think they can still do 
their job. They don't need any further cuts. I would urge a ``no'' 
vote.

[[Page 11751]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 112-173.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House 
Report 112-173.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to deliver a printed copy of a bill, joint 
     resolution, or resolution to the office of a Member of the 
     House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) unless the Member requests a 
     copy.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would prevent any funds in the Legislative 
appropriations bill from being used to distribute printed copies of 
legislation unless a Member specifically asks or requests for such a 
copy.
  Now, currently when a Member introduces legislation or becomes a 
cosponsor of a bill, three copies of that bill are sent to the Member's 
office, and oftentimes many of these copies end up being thrown away or 
recycled because legislative text is certainly available online and the 
paper copies just add to the unnecessary clutter.
  This amendment would seek to stop that practice. The legislation is 
available online, and if Members are interested, they could still get a 
copy of the bill or they can print it obviously offline or request to 
pick up a printed copy from the printing office.
  I understand that there are absolutely valid uses for the printed 
copies of these bills, and this amendment does not prevent them from 
being printed.
  A similar legislation, Mr. Chairman, was already adopted at the 
beginning of this Congress that passed the House 399-0. I would ask 
Members to support this amendment. It's fiscally responsible. It's 
common sense. It's environmentally the right thing to do as well.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAULSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I think that's a good amendment, and we have no 
objection. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to deliver a printed copy of any version of the 
     Congressional Record to the office of a Member of the House 
     of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the last amendment. It 
would prevent any funds in the Legislative appropriations bill from 
being used to distribute printed copies of the Congressional Record to 
all 435 Members' offices each day that Congress is in session.
  Now, many times copies of the Congressional Record are thrown 
straight into the recycling bin. My amendment would prevent funds from 
being used to deliver these Congressional Record copies to Members' 
offices. The amendment does not prevent the printing of the 
Congressional Record, just the delivery of the printed copy.
  Of course, there are absolutely--as I mentioned in the last 
amendment, there are legitimate uses for the Congressional Record and 
some offices may require a hard copy, and this amendment does not 
prevent that. It remains available for pickup from the Legislative 
Resource Center for all offices.
  Again, this is an amendment that is fiscally responsible and 
environmentally responsible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. That may not be done on an amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I think if you read it carefully, the chairman and the 
ranking member, under the rule, can move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. On the bill but not on an amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. On the bill? So I can't strike it on the amendment?
  Then I will rise to claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I don't necessarily oppose the amendment. In fact, I 
think it's a good amendment. But I just want to mention a couple of 
things.
  I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for bringing the amendment 
before us. We are trying to save money. Actually, I think a 
questionnaire was sent out to ask the Members if they want to receive a 
Congressional Record. Some people responded. Some people didn't 
respond. But I think like the last amendment that he offered, we are 
just trying to reduce some of the paperwork. And if people don't want 
to receive a copy, then they don't have to receive a copy. That might 
help save a little bit of money. I think on balance, it may create some 
problems, but I think it's probably a good amendment. And I would be 
willing to say we accept that amendment.
  So with that, I think Mr. Honda might want to say a word, so I'm 
going to yield to him for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I 
figured that I could spend a little time now, since I didn't take it on 
the last one.
  As a Member who represents Silicon Valley, I am supportive of most 
any effort to move us towards becoming a more paperless Congress. This 
amendment is easy to support because the Government Printing Office has 
already taken steps that reduce printed copies of the Congressional 
Record.
  GPO has surveyed the House and Senate for their continuing to print 
copies of the Record, along with other print documents, like the 
Federal Register, the first survey of its kind. And for those offices 
like my own that told GPO that we want to opt out of having the Record 
delivered to our offices, GPO stopped those deliveries.
  I think the gentleman would also be interested in knowing that 68 
percent of the costs of producing the Congressional Record is incurred 
whether copies are printed or not. These are the pre-press costs that 
are used to create the electronic file which they upload for online and 
also print.
  So while I'm not opposed to reviewing how Congress does its work, 
including its documents requirement, I believe Members should spend 
some time

[[Page 11752]]

getting to know the agency before acting upon it. I think that this 
move towards a more paperless Congress will start here. It needs to 
start here with our own practices, and I believe the GPO will 
accommodate. Again, I support this amendment, as it reinforces steps 
already taken by our partners at GPO, and I thank our colleague for 
presenting this.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase, acquire, install, or use any medium 
     screw base compact fluorescent lamp or light bulb.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer a commonsense, 
cost-effective, environmentally friendly approach to lighting the 
Capitol Complex. The amendment states that no funds in the Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill may be used to buy, acquire, install, or use 
any compact fluorescent lamp, also known more commonly as a CFL.
  I'm offering this amendment for several reasons: One, there are no 
compact fluorescent lamps manufactured in the United States. This is a 
very important point. The CFLs that provide light for this Chamber and 
the Capitol Complex are all foreign-made.
  Two, CFLs contain mercury, a known neurotoxin which affects motor and 
cognitive skills by impairing the brain. If a CFL, or ``mercury bomb,'' 
as some have called them, breaks, the mercury vapor is released, 
placing those nearby at risk of inhaling the vapors and absorbing 
mercury through the lungs. The EPA has set up guidelines for the 
cleanup of broken CFL bulbs that includes evacuating the room 
immediately and venting it for at least 10 minutes. Even short-term 
exposure can potentially cause ``memory disturbances, sleep disorders, 
anger, fatigue, and/or hand tremors,'' according to recent studies.
  Three, since Congress forced the use of foreign-made CFLs 4 years 
ago, American lighting manufacturers have made substantial investments 
in technology and have retooled their factories to make new LED and 
incandescent bulbs which meet the energy efficiency standards Congress 
mandated.
  The best part: These new American-made bulbs are mercury-free, 
energy-efficient, cost-effective, and provide better lighting than 
their CFL counterparts. Let me say that again: This amendment does not 
ban energy-efficient bulbs from the Capitol. On the contrary, it makes 
sure that the energy-efficient bulbs that are used are mercury-free and 
made in America.
  Let's take a closer look at these two bulbs. This curlicue CFL is 
energy-efficient by definition. No doubt. This halogen incandescent is 
also energy-efficient, by definition. This CFL contains mercury, and if 
it breaks, we have to evacuate the Chamber. This halogen bulb is 
mercury-free, and if it breaks, we get the broom. This CFL is made in a 
foreign country. This halogen bulb is made in America, with 
technologies created by American ingenuity. This CFL adds to our trade 
deficit. This halogen bulb supports American manufacturing and American 
jobs. These are good-paying, family sustaining jobs. And that's why the 
United Steelworkers has been more than happy to lend their support to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all agree, energy-efficient, cost-effective, 
environmentally friendly, and American-made is the way to go. I 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense amendment. It's just a bright idea.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us would prohibit the 
purchase, acquisition, installation, or use of any medium compact 
fluorescent lightbulbs. This amendment seeks to rehash the debate on 
lightbulb efficiency standards we had during the consideration of H.R. 
2417, the BULB Act, which failed when it was brought to a vote earlier 
this month.
  The impact of this amendment on this bill goes beyond a policy 
argument on whether or not you support these types of energy-saving 
bulbs. This amendment would prevent Members and staff from literally 
turning on the lights. If offices have these bulbs, which most do, they 
would be prohibited from using them.
  One reason that folks support doing away with energy-efficient 
lightbulbs is because they consider them to be a potential mercury 
danger. There has been no proof that these lightbulbs expose people to 
unhealthy levels of mercury. This scare tactic is trying to impose fear 
and is a result of an overblown media report that exaggerated the 
potential danger.
  These bulbs are safe. They're already installed and are used in the 
House, and they save taxpayers money. And, oh, by the way, I believe 
every thermostat we have in our House has quite a bit of mercury in 
there.
  So with that, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman for laying out his points there. I couldn't 
disagree more though. These are a result of those standards that were 
created in previous Congresses, long before I got here. These are 
energy-efficient bulbs that meet the standards today that were set 
forth by this body.
  This amendment I'm putting forth is a commonsense amendment that 
recognizes the innovation of American manufacturers. These folks 
delivered what Congress put out there for an issue to do. And I 
disagree when it comes to mercury. What I quoted you was from the EPA 
in terms of, if this bulb were to break in this Chamber, we would be 
forced to evacuate, simply from breaking one bulb. The EPA tells us 
that a room would have to be evacuated. It would have to be cleared and 
ventilated. So that's from the Environmental Protection Agency. These 
are energy-efficient bulbs, and this is not the only one. Many 
manufacturers in the United States have risen to the challenge of 
meeting those new energy-efficiency standards.

                              {time}  2110

  Why would we not recognize and utilize American-made bulbs that meet 
those energy efficiency standards that, frankly, contain no harmful 
chemicals in terms of mercury, as opposed to one--these bulbs, there is 
no place in the United States where CF bulbs are manufactured. This 
bulb is about foreign jobs.
  And so I appreciate the gentleman's point. I just couldn't disagree 
more.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the example of 
the EPA indicating that this mercury would be a danger and so, off the 
subject then, when we talk about EPA standards and sustaining EPA, I 
hope that we can be on the same side on that one.
  I continue to reserve my time in order to close the debate.
  The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 11753]]


  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I'm just trying to understand. I know you've got the 
two light bulbs there. Now, the one on the right, that's the one that's 
got mercury in it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's correct.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Now, the one on your left, and that's made in America?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's made in America.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. And that's just as efficient as the one in your right 
hand?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. It meets the efficiency standards that 
were--our manufacturers, when those were set by previous Congresses 
before my time here, our manufacturers, they stepped to the plate and 
they rose up and they chose to use innovation in their manufacturing. 
And this is one example of one product that's absolutely energy 
efficient, no mercury and American-made.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. And you can still buy those at the store?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's correct.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HONDA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the utilization of what you call the curlicue and the 
other light bulb, I guess the question would remain, in terms of 
efficiency and sustainability, how long of a lifetime does what you 
call the curlicue light bulb have versus the other one? It seems to me 
that when I'm a shopper and I look at prices and I look at the number 
of hours that it's going to be up there, the number of hours that the 
newer bulbs have exceed anything that I've seen before.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. Yes, but let me finish here. I just wanted to make sure 
that we don't confuse what we call efficiency with sustainability. I 
think the sustainability is also a piece that we should be looking at. 
The production of it, I think, is important, and I don't fight you on 
the point that we should make more stuff here. We should, and we will. 
I think that there are more products in Lowe's and Orchard Supply and 
places like that that exhibit that we are making more of that here.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I agree with the gentleman. Return on 
investment for consumers is important. In my experience with these 
bulbs, frankly, their durability is excellent. That is one of the 
things I think that innovation within light bulbs, our light bulb 
manufacturers have addressed, not just energy efficiency, but also 
durability, so that we have a bulb, an American-made product, that has 
a great return on investment for our consumers. That's all important. I 
couldn't agree with you more.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the wording of the gentleman's amendment 
says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to 
purchase, acquire, install, and use any medium screw-based compact 
florescent lamp or light. It also feels like the argument is about 
whether we can continue to purchase, or are we going to just allow 
these bulbs that we have in place to stay in place and not ever be 
removed.
  So I think that, one, it's confusing. Two, I'm not sure that we're 
going to really attain this position of efficiency and sustainability 
under this amendment that is presented here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hanna

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in 
House Report 112-173.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives to make any payments from any Members' 
     Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle in an 
     aggregate amount that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any 
     month.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hanna) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, right now our Nation is seriously debating 
its fiscal future. We're making tough decisions to get spending under 
control. Congress should do the same.
  This spending bill for Congress allows us an opportunity to practice 
what we preach when it comes to excessive spending on the taxpayer 
dime.
  My amendment is quite simple. It states that the CAO may not make MRA 
payments for the leasing of a vehicle in an amount that exceeds $1,000 
per month. It applies only to individual Member office accounts and 
would not affect the Capitol Police or other legislative agencies. It 
would not affect periodic car rentals, and it does not, it is not the 
intention of the amendment to affect mobile offices.
  This is about preventing the leasing of expensive luxury cars. 
Currently, there is no cap on how much Members can spend on leased 
cars. The only requirement is that cars meet certain fuel standards.
  This amendment installs a $1,000 monthly cap. Members of Congress 
have 2-year terms, which could require a slightly more expensive short-
term lease. This amendment accounts for that.
  I believe the majority of this body and most Americans can agree that 
$1,000 a month for a car is more than reasonable. We do not need to be 
spending the taxpayers dollars leasing expensive luxury vehicles, and 
certainly not during these tough economic times.
  I would also note that the Senate does not offer any car leasing 
whatsoever. If Senators can go without car leases, Members of the 
people's House can get by with less expensive cars.
  Wasting taxpayer dollars sends the wrong message to the American 
public. It only serves to further erode our constituents' faith in us, 
their elected Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, cost-conscious 
amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want to say that I think that's a good 
amendment. And I think some of the people that are concerned about the 
reduction in the MRA, then they won't have to worry about the extra 
$1,000 that they were going to spend leasing a car because they won't 
be able to do that anymore under your amendment.
  Mr. HANNA. They won't have it anyway, right?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. So we have no objection, and accept the amendment.
  Mr. HONDA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HONDA. I have no objection. I just have a quick comment that I'm 
okay with including this prohibition. I think the Committee on the 
House Administration should review this issue and consider making a 
permanent change to House leasing policy, rather than having the 
Appropriations Committee carry this temporary fix.
  Mr. HANNA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page 11754]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hanna) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2551) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
further consideration of H.R. 2551 pursuant to House Resolution 359, 
the following amendments be permitted to be offered out of the 
specified order:
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Flake; amendment No. 11 by Mr. Flake.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 359 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2551.

                              {time}  2120


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Woodall in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 112-173 by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hanna) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in 
order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 112-173.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Members' representational allowances or for official mail for 
     committees and leadership offices of the House of 
     Representatives may be used for any mailing that does not 
     bear the official letterhead of the Member, committee, or 
     office involved, other than a publication or document 
     produced by another office of the Government or by an office 
     of a State or local government that is included with such a 
     mailing.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that all 
mail sent by Members, committees, and leadership offices be on the 
official letterhead of the sending office. This amendment would not 
prevent Members from sending mass mailings or the so-called ``499s.''
  The specific intent of the amendment is to prohibit the use of the 
four-color glossy mailers that Members occasionally send and that are 
paid for at taxpayer expense. They are virtually indistinguishable at 
times from campaign mailers. If I were to hold up an example of franked 
mail sent out at taxpayer expense with a little tiny disclaimer there 
saying ``paid for at taxpayer expense''--four-color glossy with a big 
touched-up photo of the Member standing there, typically--you would not 
be able to tell the difference, unless you looked very, very closely, 
between that and campaign mailers that are sent out and paid for at the 
campaign expense.
  I think that in this era, particularly given the budget constraints 
that we're under, for Members of Congress to be sending out what is 
essentially campaign mail at taxpayer expense should be forbidden. We 
shouldn't be able to do that.
  We have certain rules that even prohibit the mailing of these mailers 
within 90 days of an election. So we recognize as a body, as an 
institution, that these are essentially instruments of a campaign; yet 
we allow it before 90 days. I would say that we are already drawing a 
line. That line is simply drawn in the wrong place. We should prohibit 
these four-color glossy mailers from being sent out at taxpayer 
expense.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What are we going to do about three-color mailers? How about two-
color mailers?
  I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, and we have rules 
and regulations in this House, but I don't think we ought to 
micromanage these MRA accounts. We've talked a lot about them, about 
the fact that we have reduced them by 6.4 percent, and people have 
said, gee, I might have to lay off somebody; or now we learn that, 
since you can lease a car, they might have to give up the lease on 
their car.
  Some people say, I love to send out mail, and whether they send out 
mail on their letterhead--actually, that might cost more than a 
postcard. I guess under this amendment you couldn't send out a 
postcard--it's a little bit cheaper--because it wasn't printed on 
special stationery.
  So I really don't think we ought to get in the business of saying 
what we can send out and what we can't send out. As long as the Members 
comply with the rules of this House, if they want to spend more money 
on a more attractive piece of mail that people might very well read, 
then they ought to be free to do that. If they want to print it on 
official stationery in blue or black or whatever color ink they want to 
use, they ought to be able to do that.
  Some people think if you put a picture or a chart, people might pay 
more attention. And if you look at the rules of this House, we've got 
rules and regulations of how big the charts can be, how big the 
pictures can be, how big the letters in your name can be. Because I 
think the point is that we want to communicate with our constituents. 
If we want to mail them a newsletter, I think we ought to be able to do 
that, and it ought to be in a way that they would like to read it.
  So I don't think we ought to get into the business of telling the 
Members exactly what they can do and when they can do it and what color 
it is. I think the rules of this House provide adequate protection, and 
so I have to oppose my good friend's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I would simply say in response that the gentleman says that we 
shouldn't be in the business of telling Members what they can mail and 
when they can mail it. We already are in that business. We do that. We 
already have a line drawn, 90 days before an election, and we say you 
can't mail these four-color glossy brochures after 90 days because it 
would be seen and perceived as electioneering. But what about 91 days 
before an election?
  We have an office here that tells the Members what words they can use 
to describe a Medicare benefit or some bill that has been passed. If 
you use it in one way, they say that's disallowed. We shouldn't be in 
that business. That's the business we shouldn't be in. And we wouldn't 
be in that business if we just said, hey, don't do electioneering at 
taxpayer expense.
  We all know, believe me, when you see those four-color glossies, you 
know that's a campaign mailer at taxpayer expense. So we're not fooling 
anybody by saying we have rules that prohibit it, and let's just stick 
to the rules of the House.
  We do have lines that are drawn; they're just drawn in the wrong 
place. And I can tell you nothing feeds the cynicism around the country 
about us, Members of Congress, than to get one

[[Page 11755]]

of those mailers and see the tiny print there, ``Paid for at taxpayer 
expense.'' We shouldn't be in that business.
  During the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process the newspaper Roll 
Call noted that: The House Chief Administrative Officer asked 
appropriators to raise the Members' Representational Allowances, or 
MRA, which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, 
travel and supplies, by $90 million, citing increases due to the 
election year cycle.
  Now, why would an election year cycle be any more expensive than any 
other? It's because Members all rush to get these glossy mailers out 
before the 90-day deadline. And we send the 499s. We send 499, you know 
why? Because anything over 500 is prohibited, so Members will send 499 
of them. It's electioneering. We know it. We're not fooling anybody.
  We ought to draw the line back a bit so we don't feed this cynicism 
around the country that says that incumbents have advantages that 
challengers or others running in these races every 2 years don't. And 
that's the truth.
  Speaking here as an incumbent, we have enough advantages, believe me. 
We can get on television whenever we want. We can stand here at the 
pulpit late at night, or otherwise, and offer amendments. We can get 
our mug on television all we want to. We shouldn't have the advantage 
of sending out four-color glossy mailers at taxpayer expense. That's 
what this amendment is about, and I urge adoption of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield some time to Mr. 
Honda, but I just can't help but realize that you can't mail any mass 
mailings, whether they're black and white, whether they're four color, 
eight color, ten color. So I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to 
do, but he's not going to stop people from sending out newsletters. 
They can send them out in black and white even if his amendment passed.
  Once again, this doesn't save any money. I just think, clearly, 
Members have these MRAs. They can utilize the money to communicate the 
best way they can as long as they comply with the rules. And the rules 
say you can't send out a mass mailer 90 days before an election, 
whether it's black and white, one color, two colors, four colors, eight 
colors.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Flake amendment will prevent Members from sending mailings that 
do not use official letterhead. The Committee on House Administration 
handles franking, not one individual Member who has decided that he 
does not like the mailing system of other Members.
  What the gentleman is trying to prevent is an eligible activity under 
franking guidelines. I would remind the gentleman that he is now a 
Member of the majority party. He should reach out to his leadership to 
change the House franking regulations if he has such a problem.
  I do not believe in a one-man regulatory body, and I certainly do not 
believe one Member should dictate how another Member communicates with 
his or her constituents. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that the 
gentleman from Arizona is impinging on individual Members' choices in 
how they communicate with their constituents.
  As I said before, the Committee on House Administration has all those 
guidelines; and the guidelines even make my job a little tight 
sometimes, but there is a purpose for the guidelines that they give us, 
and that is to distinguish between campaigns and making sure there are 
time lines prior to campaigns. So I appreciate his efforts, but I still 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in 
order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 112-173.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Members' representational allowances or for the expenses of 
     committees and leadership offices of the House of 
     Representatives may be used to purchase advertisements that 
     hyperlink to any website maintained by funds provided under a 
     Members' representational allowance, funds provided for 
     salaries and expenses of committees of the House, or funds 
     provided for salaries and expenses of leadership offices of 
     the House.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Members from 
purchasing online advertisements that link to a Web site that is 
maintained by their MRA.
  This appropriations bill will fund the legislative branch through 
much of the next election cycle. We all know, as I said before, 
incumbents tend to have a natural advantage over challengers in 
elections; 98 percent of incumbents are typically reelected. It is 
largely due to the benefits that we currently have. We shouldn't try to 
make those better than they are naturally.
  Members are allowed to use funds in order to design and obtain an 
official Web site through house.gov. That is perfectly appropriate, and 
I am glad we are able to do that. We all have our Web sites that we 
maintain using our funds, and people should be able to contact their 
Members of Congress, and that is the easiest way to contact us at this 
point.
  Members are also allowed to maintain various profiles on social 
networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and ones that 
will be created in the future. Aside from the salaries and expenses of 
a Member's staff and computers, maintaining a social networking profile 
doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers.
  However, some Members have been using official funds to pay for ads 
that link either to their official Web site or to one of their social 
networking profiles. I would submit that while it may serve our 
purposes, by its very nature, purchasing advertising provides a Member 
an opportunity for promotion that facilitates greater name 
identification. Is not broadening name recognition and identification a 
classic responsibility of a Member's campaign activities?
  If there is even a chance that taxpayer money on online ads could be 
viewed by Members as promoting themselves for campaign purposes, we 
should not allow it. Especially now that we are in this budget crisis, 
we shouldn't be allowing Members to use their MRA or taxpayer money to 
purchase advertising to drive people to their official sites or their 
social networking sites.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the last amendment. 
Members have an MRA. They can spend the money as long as it is under 
the rules of the House. They can hire staff. They can travel back and 
forth to their districts, and they can send out letters. And now that 
we have the Internet, you can use the Internet to communicate with your 
constituents.
  We shouldn't prohibit communication from a Member to a constituent. 
Certainly no one believes that you ought to be able to use taxpayer 
dollars to buy political advertising, but I think the rules allow a 
Member to notify constituents of a town meeting coming up. He can send 
out a postcard or a four-color flier. He can send out a

[[Page 11756]]

letter on his letterhead. If a Member wants to announce that they are 
seeking applications for appointments to military academies, they can 
notify people by mail or on the Internet.
  So I think we have adequate rules and regulations that make sure that 
we are not abusing the taxpayers' dollars. And remember, these are 
dollars that are provided to the Members; and so when you micromanage 
how they spend it, it doesn't save any money. It just adds a layer of 
us telling Members how they can do things. And that is not our 
business.
  Again, I urge we defeat this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would say in response that we already have lines that we 
have drawn. We don't allow Members simply to advertise out on the 
Internet like a campaign would. That's paid for by campaign activities, 
not by taxpayer dollars. Yet this is something that has grown and 
evolved just over the past couple of years, the ability to buy 
advertisements that drive people to your Web site. This isn't something 
that we could have foreseen 10 years ago. It has just evolved. We need 
to bring our regulations in line with current technology.
  I would submit that buying online advertising to basically increase 
your name identification should be beyond what our official money 
should be used for. There are plenty of ways that Members can announce 
town halls, service academy nominations, seminars, or any other event 
that they need to host without buying online advertising with taxpayer 
dollars. That's what this amendment is about.
  The gentleman before brought up a point: Why don't we just take this 
kind of thing to the Franking Commission or to the administration of 
the House and say let's change the rules rather than doing it here?
  I can tell you why. Typically, there is a partisan environment 
against spending or against this or against that where you have some 
kind of debate. But in this case, Republicans and Democrats work 
together to protect incumbents because we are all incumbents here. 
Unless you can let the public know what is going on in a forum like 
this which you don't get when you just go to the Franking Commission, 
you don't get change.
  I can tell you that sending out four-color glossy brochures, as I 
mentioned in the last amendment, or buying online advertising to direct 
people to your official site does not pass the smell test or the laugh 
test outside the Beltway in terms of what taxpayer money should be 
spent on.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent Members from 
purchasing advertising that hyperlinks to their official Web sites. It 
is unclear what the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to do. His 
amendment seems to sanction the advertisement as long as the link is to 
a nonofficial Web site of a Member. But why would a Member link an 
advertisement highlighting official events to his or her Facebook pages 
instead of to their House Web site?
  This amendment also could make ads more expensive if Members have to 
put more information in the ads rather than linking them to their House 
Web site. So while the Member focuses on online advertisements, his 
amendment actually pertains to all advertisements. It is not clear if 
this amendment would be interpreted to prevent Members from showing 
their Web site link on television ads that are used to inform 
constituents of official events. These advertisements are sanctioned by 
House administration, and there are seven points that we have to 
follow.
  So I would say that this amendment is not clear in its scope and 
impact, and it is in contravention of the majority's guidelines on how 
Members can use their MRA funding.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, in closing, it was pointed out that 
technologies have advanced, and I think the House has stayed current. 
In 2009, the rules were modified to make sure that these franking 
rules, these rules that govern communication, apply to the Internet as 
well.

                              {time}  2140

  So we have adequate safeguards in place. We don't need to be 
micromanaging that. We let the rules of the House prevail.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Flake) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2551) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________